6 ms·

>that they can destroy the reputation of a service (and a political refugee) while doing absolutely everything they accuse the service of doing, except blatantl

>that they can destroy the reputation of a service (and a political refugee) while doing absolutely everything they accuse the service of doing, except blatantly and malevolently? Can you show me where the NYTimes told Chelsea Clinton her mom should claim the election was rigged and refuse to concede? Wikileaks destroyed it's own reputation with irresponsible releases with unredacted names, clearly timed releases to act as damage control for specific candidates, and generally just being unprofessional as hell.

cortic 9y ago
They are the only place a whistle-blower can go, without being hung out to dry; Your main complaint about them is that they sometimes, supposedly act like the rest of our media...
- ribosometronome 9y ago
  I don't know how you can make that claim with a straight face. Wikileaks has played a ridiculous coy Was-he-or-wasn't-he game with regard to Seth Rich to the detriment of his family and national discourse. Meanwhile, whistle blowers have gone to major media organizations again and again without being hung out to dry. The Washington Post didn't hang out Deep Throat to die - his identity got revealed by a family lawyer 3 decades later. Süddeutsche Zeitung didn't out the Panama Papers leaker. Most of 2017 has been spent with major stories covering the airwaves based on whistle blowers from within the White House. Edward Snowden's name got revealed at his own request. Let's not be disingenuous and act like there aren't responsible organizations and journalists dedicating their lives to aiding whistleblowers and publishing the news in a responsible manner.
  - cortic 9y ago
    "and publishing the news in a responsible manner." \s ?
malvosenior 9y ago
Just because “your side” suffered when exposed doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t see massive value in learning the truth whenever and however we can.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  Just because people don't agree with his tactics, doesn't mean they are on "the other side". Wikileaks has done a real disservice to its image as an objective, truth seeking organization when it acts like it has.
  - malvosenior 9y ago
    I don’t think there’s any debate that the information WL releases is factual. The only complaint I hear is that they are not shining their flashlight where some particular entity wants it shined. The obvious answer is more flashlights, not to smash the bulb of the single light we have. There were very few complaints about WL until they exposed Clinton.
    - paulie_a 9y ago
      The complaints might have started then, but Assange was all that was left of Wikileaks at that point simply a joke attempting to regain some form of legitimacy. In my opinion, the man never had any values and just lucked out exposing some legitimate info, in an irresponsible manner. Finally he just went off the rails believing his own press.

cortic 9y ago

They are the only place a whistle-blower can go, without being hung out to dry; Your main complaint about them is that they sometimes, supposedly act like the rest of our media...

ribosometronome 9y ago
I don't know how you can make that claim with a straight face. Wikileaks has played a ridiculous coy Was-he-or-wasn't-he game with regard to Seth Rich to the detriment of his family and national discourse. Meanwhile, whistle blowers have gone to major media organizations again and again without being hung out to dry. The Washington Post didn't hang out Deep Throat to die - his identity got revealed by a family lawyer 3 decades later. Süddeutsche Zeitung didn't out the Panama Papers leaker. Most of 2017 has been spent with major stories covering the airwaves based on whistle blowers from within the White House. Edward Snowden's name got revealed at his own request. Let's not be disingenuous and act like there aren't responsible organizations and journalists dedicating their lives to aiding whistleblowers and publishing the news in a responsible manner.
- cortic 9y ago
  "and publishing the news in a responsible manner." \s ?

malvosenior 9y ago

Just because “your side” suffered when exposed doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t see massive value in learning the truth whenever and however we can.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
Just because people don't agree with his tactics, doesn't mean they are on "the other side". Wikileaks has done a real disservice to its image as an objective, truth seeking organization when it acts like it has.
- malvosenior 9y ago
  I don’t think there’s any debate that the information WL releases is factual. The only complaint I hear is that they are not shining their flashlight where some particular entity wants it shined. The obvious answer is more flashlights, not to smash the bulb of the single light we have. There were very few complaints about WL until they exposed Clinton.
  - paulie_a 9y ago
    The complaints might have started then, but Assange was all that was left of Wikileaks at that point simply a joke attempting to regain some form of legitimacy. In my opinion, the man never had any values and just lucked out exposing some legitimate info, in an irresponsible manner. Finally he just went off the rails believing his own press.