5 ms·
Is there a good article -- does even anyone know? -- on how did Wikileaks turn from a whistleblower into a mouthpiece of the Kremlin? Edit: some examples: http
by chx 9y ago
Is there a good article -- does even anyone know? -- on how did Wikileaks turn from a whistleblower into a mouthpiece of the Kremlin?
Edit: some examples: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/10/should_the_press_consider_wikileaks_motives.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/... https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/03/03/was-wikileaks-low-hanging-fruit-for-news-organizations-to-act-as-kremlin-tools/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/03/...
- appleflaxen 9y agoi think assange is a victim of an effective smear campaign, probably organized by the CIA. He addresses this specific issue in his reddit AMA: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5n58sm/i_am_julian_assange_founder_of_wikileaks_ask_me/dcamzf6/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5n58sm/i_am_julian_as...
- nebabyte 9y agoIt's a fair point - I don't see how ad hominem attacks change the news. I guess that's why painting him as a russian sympathizer is "in" now. Makes it seem like the leaks even if authentic have some agenda. But still, parties and a gov that are threatened by their people looking in on them are just asking to be influenced by outside actors anyways, state or not. There's a reason transparency is key.
- travmatt 9y ago>I guess that's why painting him as a russian sympathizer is "in" now. Makes it seem like the leaks even if authentic have some agenda You do realize that Assange signed a commercial tv deal with Russian state propaganda shortly after they threatened his life? This followed his threats to dump 'kompromat' on them (threats which never translated into action), and was later followed through by Assange censoring emails showing Russian banks involvement in Syria, and then later trying to paint the panama papers as a'CIA plot to discredit Putin.' To act like there isn't more than reasonable grounds on which to question Assanges biases is absurd and contrary to actual history.
- FireBeyond 9y agoThe CIA plans an intricate effort to smear someone, to assassinate his character, and the best they come up with is "might have had sleep sex which might be quasi-consensual, said he'd wear a condom and didn't"? That was the best they could come up with for their "smear"?!?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- ionised 9y agoYou know, I harbour a lot of anti-American sentiment too (US government that is, the American people seem mostly fine) and I frequently speak up about it. Does that make me a Russian agent/mouthpiece/troll too?
- fsagadhadffsh 9y agoOf course, comrade! From the left's point of view everyone is a Nazi, Fascist, Kremlin puppet. /s
- enraged_camel 9y agoIt is not about being vocal with anti-American sentiment that makes one a Russian agent/mouthpiece/troll. Conduct and intent have a lot to do with it. Do you use your anti-American sentiment to push a pro-Russian agenda? Do you use inflammatory rhetoric to derail anti-Russian conversations? Do you find yourself repeating pro-Russian propaganda? When you criticize America, is your intent to widen political divides and pit Americans against each other? If you answered yes to most of the above, it is time to pause and reflect. The important thing to understand here is that one does not have to be a foreign agent or in the payroll of a foreign government to spread their propaganda. Many people become mouthpieces of various governments unwittingly, usually over a period of time. Then when someone points out their obvious bias, they get genuinely offended.
- appleflaxen 9y agosay he's 100% paid by russia. ok; fine. now let's reflect on the fact that it appears that 100% of what he's said has been true. that is a shocking fact. no less shocking because no mainstream media outlet can even come close. so what, exactly is the nature of your objection? because it looks like the epitome of an ad homenim attack, and leaves the substance of everything he's released completely unanswered (and it makes you appear too partisan to see the truth).
- crdoconnor 9y agoThis is the same Washington Post got caught manufacturing stories to generate anti-Russian hysteria: https://theintercept.com/2016/12/31/russia-hysteria-infects-washpost-again-false-story-about-hacking-u-s-electric-grid/ https://theintercept.com/2016/12/31/russia-hysteria-infects-... And that created an McCarthyite blacklist: https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/ https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgrace... Of course, the Washington Post isn't really guilty of anything more than slavishly believing what US military officials are saying, who, of course, wouldn't do anything as crass as to try and denounce Assange as an enemy of the people and a puppet of Russia.
- baby 9y ago> how did Wikileaks turn from a whistleblower into a mouthpiece of the Kremlin? Examples are not proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
- cjrp 9y agoHe hosted a show on Russia Today; he was literally a mouthpiece of the Kremlin.
- nebabyte 9y agoIf seeking a platform makes you a mouthpiece, then ISIS is just a mouthpiece for Twitter.
- cjrp 9y agoISIS aren't employed by Twitter. It's completely different.
- wfo 9y agoAmy Goodman hosts a show on NPR, a U.S. government news station. She is literally a mouthpiece for Trump and the U.S. government.
- brainfire 9y agoRT is owned and primarily funded by the Russian government. NPR receives around 2% of its funding from the US government.
- saalweachter 9y agoAlso, as per Wikipedia: "Democracy Now Productions, the independent nonprofit organization which produces Democracy Now!, is funded entirely through contributions from listeners, viewers, and foundations and does not accept advertisers, corporate underwriting or government funding." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Now! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Now!)
- grabcocque 9y agoAssange had a very personal vendetta with Hillary Clinton, the Kremlin were merely another weapon.
- jmkni 9y agoWhen Assange was studying his PhD in the US (Bill Clinton was president at the time) the funding for his research was suddenly cut by the US Government, and he was never told why. He's held a grudge against the US Government since then.
- nailer 9y agoLosing your funding is one thing, but Hillary Clinton allegedly requested Julian Assange be killed. It's unproven one way or the other, here's the Snopes article: http://www.snopes.com/julian-assange-drone-strike/ http://www.snopes.com/julian-assange-drone-strike/
- nebabyte 9y ago> Hillary Clinton allegedly requested that Julian Assange be killed Politicians have the weirdest rider lists
- zrth 9y agoWhat makes you think that WL is a mouthpiece of the Kremlin?
- varjag 9y agoAssange agenda was always anti-Americanism at expense of everyone else, so he just stayed true to himself. Many of his then liberal supporters were turning a blind eye to this, until it spectacularly bit them in the ass.
- chx 9y agoWhat about the "Macron leak"?
- varjag 9y agoI absolutely understand he coordinates with Russia, just that it wasn't some surprising development. He has a long history cooperating with dictatorships, just that it wasn't objectionable to his then fans. Nothing has changed, except the pro-liberty, pro-privacy, Guy Fawkes mask-wearing crowd is on the receiving end of his treatment now.
- notahacker 9y agoI think it's less Assange having a specific pro-Russian agenda and more him rather enjoying the opportunity to make trouble for politicians and Russian affiliates being more than happy to assist him with that. The traditional Russian term for political radicals whose agitation tended to serve their state's agenda despite very different ideals is popularly translated as "useful idiot"
- matt4077 9y agoWell, at least in that case, I think the Russian translates more literally to "ineffectual fool". On a more serious note: did Wikileaks actually release the Macron files? I seem to remember they were only cheerleading it. But if they did, it's probably the nail in the coffin for their reputation, considering it was obvious for even casual observers to see that the dump contained altered documents, and that the leakers only had the intention of derailing the democratic process, willing to misinform people on the way.
- 9y ago
- tmnvix 9y agoIs there any reason for you to believe that Wikileaks is "a mouthpiece of the Kremlin"?
- chx 9y agoWhat about the "Macron leak"?