4 ms·
"both stable and squeaky clean" where by 'squeaky clean' you mean 'has not been accused of any crime by anyone? is that a state of being outside of the contro
by bandushrew 16y ago
"both stable and squeaky clean"
where by 'squeaky clean' you mean 'has not been accused of any crime by anyone? is that a state of being outside of the control of the person being accused?
- jacquesm 16y agoNo, by squeaky clean I mean someone that can see the difference between having your own agenda and passing on information in as neutral a way as possible. By taking sides he's lost the advantage that he had.
- lhnz 16y agoEverybody has an agenda or opinion. Even yourself. Nothing is completely neutral. And if you want to convince people yours is the right way you make sure to speak in a persuasive way. Isn't this just a fact of life nowadays?
- jacquesm 16y agoI agree that nothing is completely neutral, there always is a bias. But if you allow your bias to get in the way of serving your primary goal (the transparent release of information that was otherwise hidden from the general public) then you could do a lot worse than to try not to let your bias get in the way of the reporting. Julian Assange has failed that test in a very bad way, the 'collateral damage' release claimed at least one unexpected victim, which was the image of integrity of wikileaks. The weird thing is that I find myself agreeing with Assagnes agenda but I strongly disagree with the way he went about releasing that information.