3 ms·

Fortunately, I can read wiki Leak's actual source documents and decide for myself what to believe. Their commentary on what they release is inconsequential. Wh

• FilterSweep 9y ago
  Leak chooses which source documents to show you, therefore shifting the narrative you interpret.
  • stale2002 9y ago
    Facts are facts and the truth is the truth. Nothing you said changes the reality that the documents are real. If other people have a different opinion on what the narrative should be then they should release documents of their own. But that still doesn't change the truth of the previous documents.
    • txcwpalpha 9y ago
      Just because something is "real" doesn't mean you should blindly put your trust in it. Document 1 says: "President ABC bombed a school in Syria today, killing 50 people." Document 2 says: "This action was carried out after President ABC learned that the school was being used as a base for terrorists, and only terrorist combatants were killed during the bombing." Both documents are real, but only releasing document #1 and keeping document #2 secret is a very easy way to shift the narrative against President ABC.
• txcwpalpha 9y ago
  Unfortunately, this isn't true. It is not "inconsequential". Most people will read the headline/commentary and blindly trust it without reading the source material at all. This is a problem with the audience, yes, but it's also a problem with the organizations that take advantage of the audience. But even amongst those that do still read the source material, if they read the commentary beforehand they are still likely to have their perception influenced a certain way, even if only subconsciously. Psychological priming is a thing.