7 ms·

Do you hold WaPo, NYT, CNN to those same standards? Because that is mainly what American "MSM" does, selectively publish information which bebefits the agenda o

Do you hold WaPo, NYT, CNN to those same standards? Because that is mainly what American "MSM" does, selectively publish information which bebefits the agenda of American foreign policy interests. It's fair if you align yourself with American foreign policy interests, I do too, but to single out other publications that don't follow that agenda is just a case of having self interested double standards. All of the criticism of Wiki leaks and non-America MSM has all sounded like that to me. "They are selectively publishing different things than we want to be selectively published. Waaah". But let me guess what the go to response would be: "whataboutism" (aka you can't call me a hypocrite, because some guy made a term for it).

reddytowns 10y ago
By complaining about WaPo, et al, you are guilty of "whataboutism" yourself. Is the standard so low that we can't even mention that a non profit(?) organization devoted to releasing leaks of wrongdoing shouldn't be blatantly partisan? Edit: I misread the last part of your comment about "whataboutism". Yet my question still applies, isn't it?
- Natsu 10y ago
  The claims of partisanship rely on claims that Wikileaks somehow selects their sources. They are not a hacking organization and they do not go choosing targets to hack for the leaks, so they cannot be selective in the same way that, for example, the NYT chooses openly to be. I have yet to see anyone even claim that Wikileaks participates in the hacks themselves, let alone to provide evidence thereof.
  - sanswork 10y ago
    The claims of partisanship rely on Wikileaks own claims to have information that they aren't releasing. Assange has said they have information on Trump that they weren't releasing.
    - yorwba 10y ago
      > Assange has said they have information on Trump that they weren't releasing. Could you point me to a source for that?
      - sanswork 10y ago
        http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/293453-assange-wikileaks-trump-info-no-worse-than-him http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/29345...
        yorwba 10y ago
        I was expecting something more damning. But I guess they could have published the info, and the reason they didn't is not very convincing. It suggests they are more after the publicity than after a reputation of publishing anything and everything.
        Natsu 10y ago
        From the description, it sounds like they got that opposition research doc that every other media organization had and which most of them said they didn't publish because they weren't able to validate it.
        sanswork 10y ago
        What from the description do you think described that document?
        Natsu 10y ago
        > "it’s a variety of documents from different types of institutions that are associated with the election campaign, some quite unexpected angles, some quite interesting, some even entertaining" The fact that it was 'associated with the election campaign' and 'entertaining' made me feel it was there. I don't remember seeing other docs that satisfied both criteria, but it is only a guess and I could be wrong.
- nebabyte 10y ago
  And why not? What separates them from the many non-profit(?) organizations which are partisan? "Don't do X, it's bad for The Party" is frankly far more cancerous for the process than any truths getting revealed. The weaknesses are there either way, but highlighting them and tearing away at them would (should) lead the way for stronger parties (in the sense of fewer weaknesses to exploit; better control over the leadership by the constituents, and so on) to evolve. But no - it's not enough that the public be sold on the idea of "only two flavors" when it 'matters', but we have to let the weak, flaw-riddled leaders of those parties limp on even if they're completely alienated from its base, because we can't risk 'not towing the party line.' Apathy for that exact kind of 'suck it up' logic is (in my opinion, anyways) one of the hugely deciding factors in the numbers that abstained from the election this time. Frankly, organizations like WIkileaks should be doing more to tear away at existing parties and partisanship - for disillusioned voters, that'd actually be restoring faith in the system.
elemenopy 10y ago
I disagree: I think there is a reasonable case to hold WikiLeaks and the NYT to different standards. I think WikiLeaks holds itself out as a much more anarchic news organisation than traditional outlets like the NYT. WikiLeaks isn't connected or have allegiance to any particular country, and will publish, let the facts speak for themselves and damn the establishment and any particular national interests that are harmed. On the other hand, organisations like the NYT are pretty open about how while they often publish against the wishes of USG they do ask for comment and may defer publication if they are satisfied there are very good reasons to do so. [1] Therefore, for WikiLeaks to become highly partisan is a radical departure from their original mission; moreover, it has happened without WikiLeaks acknowledging that this is the case. I think you can't same the same for the NYT. 1. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/public-editor/sullivan-lessons-in-a-surveillance-drama-redux.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/public-editor/sullivan-les...
- oxide 10y ago
  I agree. Why is anyone holding a site meant for whistleblowing and leaking of confidential information and the website of a newspaper to the same standard? Apples and oranges, IMO: It's not really fair to get mad at an orange for not giving you apple juice. >Therefore, for WikiLeaks to become highly partisan is a radical departure from their original mission; moreover, it has happened without WikiLeaks acknowledging that this is the case. I think you can't same the same for the NYT. Well said. I don't get the partisanship from Wikileaks. What do they gain by picking sides? What is encouraging (or discouraging) Wikileaks to play cherry picker?
  - sneak 10y ago
    Well, there is that whole thing about their founder being illegally indefinitely detained and denied due process. There are no MRI machines in that embassy.
    - elemenopy 10y ago
      > being illegally indefinitely detained and denied due process This is a mischaracterisation. If Assange wanted due process, he could leave the embassy and face the British (and then possibly Swedish) court systems. The only person choosing to arbitrarily detain Assange without due process is himself.
bennettfeely 10y ago
Every one of those news outlets publishes multiple stories criticizing the current leader of the United States and the United States' foreign policy agenda. This happens nearly every hour of the day.
- olegious 10y ago
  Yes, but they don't question or criticize our foreign policy which is very destructive to the long term interests of this country.
  - lettergram 10y ago
    Pretty much every organization is criticizing our foreign policy at the moment. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=trump+foreign+policy&t=fpas&iax=1&ia=news https://duckduckgo.com/?q=trump+foreign+policy&t=fpas&iax=1&...
    - yunocat 10y ago
      Really? Show me the set of NYT/WaPo/ETc pieces consistently outlining an editorial position for any one of the following issues: Unaccountable global free trade deals are a bad idea, Assad is not an evil guy that should be replaced via direct or indirect US action, That Syrian rebel groups are in fact heavily islamised, that Putin is not trying to be Stalin 2.0, that the Ukraine is a mess due to problems on all sides, that a Palestinian 1 state solution is preferred to the current 2 state strategy, or equating the level of theocratic social repression in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Does the occasional piece crop up hinting that these could concievably be valid positions if they weren't actually incorrect? Yes. Does that mean they are consistently viewed or even evaluated by pinning down biases and weighing them against objective comparitive philosophical standards, particularly applied to the topic at hand? Ha!
      - ethbro 10y ago
        Despite the cherry picking of subjects in your post, in 15 minutes... Saudis @ NYT from a selection of recent articles: "Trump has made it clear he is not worried about supporting human rights or freedom; [...] that all those difficult questions about gender equality and the like are going to be off the table for the next four years, and that Iran is very much on the table,” Mr. Riedel said." https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/world/middleeast/mohammed-bin-salman-saudi-arabia-trump.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/world/middleeast/moham... "The sale of oil provides billions of dollars in annual allowances, public sector sinecures and perks for royals, the wealthiest of whom own French chateaus and Saudi palaces, stash money in Swiss bank accounts, wear couture dresses under their abayas and frolic on some of the world’s biggest yachts out of sight of commoners." https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/world/middleeast/saudi-king-indonesia-wealth.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/world/middleeast/saudi... and https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/27/world/middleeast/saudi-royal-family-money.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/27/world/middleeast/saudi... "Activists in the country have long protested its patriarchal society that essentially prohibits women from traveling, marrying or attending college without permission from a male relative, who is called their guardian." https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-women-video.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/world/middleeast/saudi... "Western human rights organizations criticized both the trial and the sentences, saying that the accused were denied proper legal representation, charged over activities that should not be crimes and pressed into signing “confessions” that were used against them." https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-iran-spying-trial.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/world/middleeast/saudi...
maxerickson 10y ago
The slightly more sophisticated and worrisome complaint is that the media chases after whatever Wikileaks releases, so Wikileaks can drop a nothing-burger with a juicy headline and then the US media prints the headline, even though it is only vaguely supported by the drop.
throwaway2048 10y ago
The point of highlighting whataboutism isn't that the "what about" claims are wrong, its that hypocracy is irrelivant to an arugement about something.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

reddytowns 10y ago

By complaining about WaPo, et al, you are guilty of "whataboutism" yourself. Is the standard so low that we can't even mention that a non profit(?) organization devoted to releasing leaks of wrongdoing shouldn't be blatantly partisan? Edit: I misread the last part of your comment about "whataboutism". Yet my question still applies, isn't it?

Natsu 10y ago
The claims of partisanship rely on claims that Wikileaks somehow selects their sources. They are not a hacking organization and they do not go choosing targets to hack for the leaks, so they cannot be selective in the same way that, for example, the NYT chooses openly to be. I have yet to see anyone even claim that Wikileaks participates in the hacks themselves, let alone to provide evidence thereof.
- sanswork 10y ago
  The claims of partisanship rely on Wikileaks own claims to have information that they aren't releasing. Assange has said they have information on Trump that they weren't releasing.
  - yorwba 10y ago
    > Assange has said they have information on Trump that they weren't releasing. Could you point me to a source for that?
    - sanswork 10y ago
      http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/293453-assange-wikileaks-trump-info-no-worse-than-him http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/29345...
      - yorwba 10y ago
        I was expecting something more damning. But I guess they could have published the info, and the reason they didn't is not very convincing. It suggests they are more after the publicity than after a reputation of publishing anything and everything.
        Natsu 10y ago
        From the description, it sounds like they got that opposition research doc that every other media organization had and which most of them said they didn't publish because they weren't able to validate it.
        sanswork 10y ago
        What from the description do you think described that document?
        Natsu 10y ago
        > "it’s a variety of documents from different types of institutions that are associated with the election campaign, some quite unexpected angles, some quite interesting, some even entertaining" The fact that it was 'associated with the election campaign' and 'entertaining' made me feel it was there. I don't remember seeing other docs that satisfied both criteria, but it is only a guess and I could be wrong.
nebabyte 10y ago
And why not? What separates them from the many non-profit(?) organizations which are partisan? "Don't do X, it's bad for The Party" is frankly far more cancerous for the process than any truths getting revealed. The weaknesses are there either way, but highlighting them and tearing away at them would (should) lead the way for stronger parties (in the sense of fewer weaknesses to exploit; better control over the leadership by the constituents, and so on) to evolve. But no - it's not enough that the public be sold on the idea of "only two flavors" when it 'matters', but we have to let the weak, flaw-riddled leaders of those parties limp on even if they're completely alienated from its base, because we can't risk 'not towing the party line.' Apathy for that exact kind of 'suck it up' logic is (in my opinion, anyways) one of the hugely deciding factors in the numbers that abstained from the election this time. Frankly, organizations like WIkileaks should be doing more to tear away at existing parties and partisanship - for disillusioned voters, that'd actually be restoring faith in the system.

elemenopy 10y ago

I disagree: I think there is a reasonable case to hold WikiLeaks and the NYT to different standards. I think WikiLeaks holds itself out as a much more anarchic news organisation than traditional outlets like the NYT. WikiLeaks isn't connected or have allegiance to any particular country, and will publish, let the facts speak for themselves and damn the establishment and any particular national interests that are harmed. On the other hand, organisations like the NYT are pretty open about how while they often publish against the wishes of USG they do ask for comment and may defer publication if they are satisfied there are very good reasons to do so. [1] Therefore, for WikiLeaks to become highly partisan is a radical departure from their original mission; moreover, it has happened without WikiLeaks acknowledging that this is the case. I think you can't same the same for the NYT. 1. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/public-editor/sullivan-lessons-in-a-surveillance-drama-redux.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/public-editor/sullivan-les...

oxide 10y ago
I agree. Why is anyone holding a site meant for whistleblowing and leaking of confidential information and the website of a newspaper to the same standard? Apples and oranges, IMO: It's not really fair to get mad at an orange for not giving you apple juice. >Therefore, for WikiLeaks to become highly partisan is a radical departure from their original mission; moreover, it has happened without WikiLeaks acknowledging that this is the case. I think you can't same the same for the NYT. Well said. I don't get the partisanship from Wikileaks. What do they gain by picking sides? What is encouraging (or discouraging) Wikileaks to play cherry picker?
- sneak 10y ago
  Well, there is that whole thing about their founder being illegally indefinitely detained and denied due process. There are no MRI machines in that embassy.
  - elemenopy 10y ago
    > being illegally indefinitely detained and denied due process This is a mischaracterisation. If Assange wanted due process, he could leave the embassy and face the British (and then possibly Swedish) court systems. The only person choosing to arbitrarily detain Assange without due process is himself.

bennettfeely 10y ago

Every one of those news outlets publishes multiple stories criticizing the current leader of the United States and the United States' foreign policy agenda. This happens nearly every hour of the day.

olegious 10y ago
Yes, but they don't question or criticize our foreign policy which is very destructive to the long term interests of this country.
- lettergram 10y ago
  Pretty much every organization is criticizing our foreign policy at the moment. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=trump+foreign+policy&t=fpas&iax=1&ia=news https://duckduckgo.com/?q=trump+foreign+policy&t=fpas&iax=1&...
  - yunocat 10y ago
    Really? Show me the set of NYT/WaPo/ETc pieces consistently outlining an editorial position for any one of the following issues: Unaccountable global free trade deals are a bad idea, Assad is not an evil guy that should be replaced via direct or indirect US action, That Syrian rebel groups are in fact heavily islamised, that Putin is not trying to be Stalin 2.0, that the Ukraine is a mess due to problems on all sides, that a Palestinian 1 state solution is preferred to the current 2 state strategy, or equating the level of theocratic social repression in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Does the occasional piece crop up hinting that these could concievably be valid positions if they weren't actually incorrect? Yes. Does that mean they are consistently viewed or even evaluated by pinning down biases and weighing them against objective comparitive philosophical standards, particularly applied to the topic at hand? Ha!
    - ethbro 10y ago
      Despite the cherry picking of subjects in your post, in 15 minutes... Saudis @ NYT from a selection of recent articles: "Trump has made it clear he is not worried about supporting human rights or freedom; [...] that all those difficult questions about gender equality and the like are going to be off the table for the next four years, and that Iran is very much on the table,” Mr. Riedel said." https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/world/middleeast/mohammed-bin-salman-saudi-arabia-trump.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/world/middleeast/moham... "The sale of oil provides billions of dollars in annual allowances, public sector sinecures and perks for royals, the wealthiest of whom own French chateaus and Saudi palaces, stash money in Swiss bank accounts, wear couture dresses under their abayas and frolic on some of the world’s biggest yachts out of sight of commoners." https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/world/middleeast/saudi-king-indonesia-wealth.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/world/middleeast/saudi... and https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/27/world/middleeast/saudi-royal-family-money.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/27/world/middleeast/saudi... "Activists in the country have long protested its patriarchal society that essentially prohibits women from traveling, marrying or attending college without permission from a male relative, who is called their guardian." https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-women-video.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/world/middleeast/saudi... "Western human rights organizations criticized both the trial and the sentences, saying that the accused were denied proper legal representation, charged over activities that should not be crimes and pressed into signing “confessions” that were used against them." https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-iran-spying-trial.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/world/middleeast/saudi...

maxerickson 10y ago

The slightly more sophisticated and worrisome complaint is that the media chases after whatever Wikileaks releases, so Wikileaks can drop a nothing-burger with a juicy headline and then the US media prints the headline, even though it is only vaguely supported by the drop.

throwaway2048 10y ago

The point of highlighting whataboutism isn't that the "what about" claims are wrong, its that hypocracy is irrelivant to an arugement about something.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]