6 ms·

> While what they are publishing is true and should not be ignored Why does this matter? I feel like the reason people are worried about bias is that it means

by x1798DE 10y ago

> While what they are publishing is true and should not be ignored Why does this matter? I feel like the reason people are worried about bias is that it means the source is not trustworthy. If Wikileaks is publishing true information, they should be trustworthy, even if their choice of targets is not unbiased.

legulere 10y ago
It's kind of the effect we have with BPA. As soon as the idea got widespread that it might be unhealthy it was replaced with other chemicals we know less about and that might be even worse. Intelligence Agencies often use information to push their agenda. I don't see why it is different for Wikileaks which sees itself as one.
Cookingboy 10y ago
"I feel like the reason people are worried about bias is that it means the source is not trustworthy No, people are worried about bias because the source could be selectively publishing truth with an ulterior motive, such as pushing a predefined agenda. Propaganda is even more dangerous when it's true, but only tell people half the story.
nikdaheratik 10y ago
I think this is very naive. Russia lists a number of true things about its opponents but it only includes the truths that fit the story it wants to tell. The same goes for China, and even the U.S. What people here are asking is: "what is the story Wikileaks is trying to tell". Before they thought it was that "government is not trustworthy and needs a watchdog". Now it's possible the story is "Don't trust anyone who disagrees with Trump or Russia", and that's concerning.
- ruleabidinguser 10y ago
  This problem is instantly saolved if you have more than one source. The answer to this is not "IGNORE WIKILEAKS," and the suggestion that it is makes me doubt your motives, the answer is "READ MULTIPLE SOURCES." There are far more than enough actors with far more than enough relevant information, and certainly the capacity to distribute that information, to fill in the gaps.
  - thiagoharry 10y ago
    Exactly! People say: "I think Wikileaks is not a neutral party". Dude, NO ONE is a neutral party. This thing doesn't exist! All sources have bias!
    - whyenot 10y ago
      > All sources have bias Some are more biased than others. I think that's actually what people are discussing: how biased is Wikileaks? How heavily curated is the information they are releasing? Throwing up your hands and saying everyone is biased is a lazy answer to a difficult problem.
      - ruleabidinguser 10y ago
        What exactly is difficult here?
      - 1337biz 10y ago
        Every news medium, even you as a human being, makes intentional and unintentional selections on what to publish or not. As long as the published documents are not fakes (and independent sources verified them), motives are secondary. If what is published is true, projecting motives in the publisher are an obvious attempt to distract from the message by questioning the messenger. The message is a fact, your interpretation of the messenger is at best guesswork, at worst fanfiction.
      - jwtadvice 10y ago
        Right. But it's curious that "How biased is CNN?" gets shut down any time it comes up as a serious topic. From the whitewashing they did on the genocide in Bahrain (after accepting money from that government) to the misleading coverage of Syria, Snowden's mass surveillance disclosures, US torture program, Iraq War - to its current poor coverage of the humanitarian crisis being caused by the US intervention in Mosul. It would be wonderful to discuss the role that different outlets play and different biases come in. But it's difficult because any time the topic comes up "faithfuls" from all sides come in and it starts to look more like a sports or religion debate than it does an illuminating conversation. Yeah, Wikileaks has some biases. I actually think they are incredibly important biases. Also, I don't think they are nearly as "anti-American" as some panic about.
- problems 10y ago
  I think a lot of what's being construed as political bias from Wikileaks is simply optimizing for maximum impact. They want their leaks to be felt, to have real-world results. If they were to just dump everything months before the election, they'd be long forgotten by the time the election had come and gone.
Spooky23 10y ago
Because what isn't printed is often more important than what is. That's what editorial influence does. In my city, the local Hearst rag often doesn't report on things that the city administration doesn't want published. For example, a city employee was indicted for killing a girl and burying her body on city property (probably while on the clock) and was on "paid suspension" (i.e. On payroll, not working) for two years. Awkward situation for the mayor. The arrest happened on a Friday night. The story? Page 4, section B on Monday. In a story like this Wikileaks thing, the context is missing. How are these things used? To what end? Snowden tried to provide that context.

by x1798DE 10y ago

legulere 10y ago

It's kind of the effect we have with BPA. As soon as the idea got widespread that it might be unhealthy it was replaced with other chemicals we know less about and that might be even worse. Intelligence Agencies often use information to push their agenda. I don't see why it is different for Wikileaks which sees itself as one.

Cookingboy 10y ago

"I feel like the reason people are worried about bias is that it means the source is not trustworthy No, people are worried about bias because the source could be selectively publishing truth with an ulterior motive, such as pushing a predefined agenda. Propaganda is even more dangerous when it's true, but only tell people half the story.

nikdaheratik 10y ago

I think this is very naive. Russia lists a number of true things about its opponents but it only includes the truths that fit the story it wants to tell. The same goes for China, and even the U.S. What people here are asking is: "what is the story Wikileaks is trying to tell". Before they thought it was that "government is not trustworthy and needs a watchdog". Now it's possible the story is "Don't trust anyone who disagrees with Trump or Russia", and that's concerning.

ruleabidinguser 10y ago
This problem is instantly saolved if you have more than one source. The answer to this is not "IGNORE WIKILEAKS," and the suggestion that it is makes me doubt your motives, the answer is "READ MULTIPLE SOURCES." There are far more than enough actors with far more than enough relevant information, and certainly the capacity to distribute that information, to fill in the gaps.
- thiagoharry 10y ago
  Exactly! People say: "I think Wikileaks is not a neutral party". Dude, NO ONE is a neutral party. This thing doesn't exist! All sources have bias!
  - whyenot 10y ago
    > All sources have bias Some are more biased than others. I think that's actually what people are discussing: how biased is Wikileaks? How heavily curated is the information they are releasing? Throwing up your hands and saying everyone is biased is a lazy answer to a difficult problem.
    - ruleabidinguser 10y ago
      What exactly is difficult here?
    - 1337biz 10y ago
      Every news medium, even you as a human being, makes intentional and unintentional selections on what to publish or not. As long as the published documents are not fakes (and independent sources verified them), motives are secondary. If what is published is true, projecting motives in the publisher are an obvious attempt to distract from the message by questioning the messenger. The message is a fact, your interpretation of the messenger is at best guesswork, at worst fanfiction.
    - jwtadvice 10y ago
      Right. But it's curious that "How biased is CNN?" gets shut down any time it comes up as a serious topic. From the whitewashing they did on the genocide in Bahrain (after accepting money from that government) to the misleading coverage of Syria, Snowden's mass surveillance disclosures, US torture program, Iraq War - to its current poor coverage of the humanitarian crisis being caused by the US intervention in Mosul. It would be wonderful to discuss the role that different outlets play and different biases come in. But it's difficult because any time the topic comes up "faithfuls" from all sides come in and it starts to look more like a sports or religion debate than it does an illuminating conversation. Yeah, Wikileaks has some biases. I actually think they are incredibly important biases. Also, I don't think they are nearly as "anti-American" as some panic about.
problems 10y ago
I think a lot of what's being construed as political bias from Wikileaks is simply optimizing for maximum impact. They want their leaks to be felt, to have real-world results. If they were to just dump everything months before the election, they'd be long forgotten by the time the election had come and gone.

Spooky23 10y ago

Because what isn't printed is often more important than what is. That's what editorial influence does. In my city, the local Hearst rag often doesn't report on things that the city administration doesn't want published. For example, a city employee was indicted for killing a girl and burying her body on city property (probably while on the clock) and was on "paid suspension" (i.e. On payroll, not working) for two years. Awkward situation for the mayor. The arrest happened on a Friday night. The story? Page 4, section B on Monday. In a story like this Wikileaks thing, the context is missing. How are these things used? To what end? Snowden tried to provide that context.