8 ms·
I don't think Freedom of the Press is dead. WikiLeaks isn't a news organization, especially when they released campaign emails during the 2016 U.S. Presidential
by midniteslayr 8y ago
I don't think Freedom of the Press is dead. WikiLeaks isn't a news organization, especially when they released campaign emails during the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. They have been to be a known tool for the Russian government, even going as far as creating a show for Julian Assange on the state-backed RT TV Network.
- implying 8y agoIf a "credible" (read: state-approved) news organization had released those emails, would you have the same thoughts toward them?
- hadrien01 8y agoNews organizations wouldn't drop all the emails at once. Previous enormous leaks have been handled by ICIJ members with great care, going for years of investigations, careful verifications, and publishing only pertinent stories.
- pknopf 8y agoBut there was an election around the corner, they can't be bothered with any of that.
- thaumasiotes 8y agoWhy is that better than releasing all the emails at once? Why do they get to decide what's "pertinent"?
- 1001101 8y agoI wonder if how Julian releases the primary source material is in line with his scientific journalism [1] practices. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_journalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_journalism
- kbenson 8y agoFor the same reason that if you found yourself with access to someone's diary that you thought might be guilty of wrongdoing, you might convince yourself to look through it possibly with a lawyer friend and report on if anything illegal went on, but you might shy away from publishing the whole thing online "just in case". One option at least pays lip service to legal and ethical considerations.
- hackinthebochs 8y agoA news organization has a responsibility to present information in an informed manner in order to prevent misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Wikileaks' purpose was to paint an impression of widespread wrongdoing despite any hard evidence. Dumping a bunch of irrelevant emails all at once aids misrepresentation.
- skedaddle 8y agoDNC misconduct etc. would have been reported by traditional organizations. I think people wonder why it was good that Wikileaks released Podesta's iCloud password, his risotto recipe, doctors appointments of random staffers, and so forth.
- midniteslayr 8y agoA credible news organization would have tons of fact checkers and editors to make sure the relevant facts made it in to any article they wrote. They wouldn't, blindly, release tons of unedited emails, including some that were doctored to make the DNC and the Clinton Campaign look bad. Doesn't need to be state-sponsored (and most news organization aren't "state-sponsored" ... unlike RT, for example) to be credible.
- CamperBob2 8y agoWhich emails were doctored? I hadn't heard about that. My understanding is that the "doctoring" done by Wikileaks consisted of selectively releasing information obtained from Democratic sources while concealing similar information related to the Republican side ( https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican-emails-fbi-director-says/ https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican... ). If true, that's the point at which Assange and Wikileaks departed from the path of legitimate journalism.
- midniteslayr 8y agoThe Russians doctored the email, for example: https://www.businessinsider.com/guccifer-2-0-dnc-document-russia-hillary-clinton-2017-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/guccifer-2-0-dnc-document-ru... They did it to make it seem that the Clinton Campaign and the DNC had something nefarious going on
- monocasa 8y agoThat had nothing to do with Assange or WikiLeaks.
- shekelstien 8y agoThat’s the so called Guccifer 2.0 leak which was unrelated to the DNC emails that WikiLeaks dropped. The only relation they had were happening at a similar time.
- gbumakefan 8y ago
- krapp 8y agoWhy would a "credible" news organization have released them? They weren't released to show evidence of any particular wrongdoing, nor did they show any illegal activity. They were simply dumped in order to fuel the fire of the impression of wrongdoing, and in hopes that some smoking gun or salacious material could be found to use against her politically.
- nailer 8y agoWould you support it if the DNC had run a similar campaign supporting Clinton against Obama in 08?
- krapp 8y agoThe purpose of the DNC, as with the RNC, is to choose a candidate they feel is most likely to win. I don't believe choosing Obama over Clinton would have been any less political than choosing Clinton over Obama, or Clinton over Bernie. I don't believe that political calculus or meddling or special privileges granted to high-ranking party officials is actually atypical for either party. Of course, Wikileaks never released any data dumps from the Republicans, so we can't really know, I guess. Maybe the Republican Party is just a paragon of virtue and their opsec is perfect.
- jacobush 8y agoI know it's unfashionable, but shouldn't the parties choose a candidate they feel is most likely to do good and communicate why? I feel the constant triangulation is a big reason why the democratic world is so messed up right now.
- krapp 8y agoMaybe they should, but... come on. Did the Republicans choose Trump because they felt he was the most likely to do good and communicate why?
- 8y ago
- gbumakefan 8y agoWhat was illegal about releasing campaign emails that were given to them?
- midniteslayr 8y agoWhen it was done with the intent of influencing the 2016 election, that tends to fall under conspiracy and espionage ... especially when it comes from a former adversarial government.
- gbumakefan 8y agoSo then was it illegal when msnbc aired the infamous Trump video saying “grab them by the p...”? That was clearly meant to influence the election...
- midniteslayr 8y agoFirst, that was the Washington Post that released the tape, and second, that is more for the fitness of the candidate (at the time). Third, and more importantly, it was obtained legally, without having to break in to a server to get it.
- stordoff 8y ago> second, that is more for the fitness of the candidate (at the time) How are we distinguishing influencing the election and fitness of the candidate? I'm not seeing a substantive difference between the two, other that the source (if anything, their campaign practices seem more relevant).
- gbumakefan 8y agoWikileaks didn’t break into the server. No one knows how the emails were obtained. Your reply demonstrates your hypocrisy nicely. Clearly you just don’t like what Wikileaks has to say.
- stale2002 8y ago
- pknopf 8y agoAnd on top of that, WikiLeaks solicited the Trump campaign for a few pages of Trump's tax return with the explicit intent making WikieLeaks seem more non-partisan so as to make the emails inflict more harm.
- CryptoPunk 8y agoLeaking documents with the intent to "do harm" shouldn't be illegal. You're treading into advocacy of making mal-intent toward The Party a Thought Crime.
- boomboomsubban 8y agoYes, they are a news organization. Covering the election is what a news organization should do, and it's hard to argue the Clinton emails weren't newsworthy. >They have been to be a known tool for the Russian government, even going as far as creating a show for Julian Assange on the state-backed RT TV Network This is untrue. There is nothing suggesting that Wikileaks has knowingly coordinated with Russia. And that TV show was indepently produced by Assange, with RT buying some ofthe distribution rights.
- jsutton 8y agoCovering news is much different than exposing the private communications of a political party.
- boomboomsubban 8y agoNo, it is not. It may have been preffered if some of the less relevant emails were not shared, it's also unclear who should make the call of what is "relevant" and either way their release was news.
- midniteslayr 8y agoIf they are a news organization, they do a terrible job of reporting the news. They are a black box repository for leaked data. They were once a great resource for info hackers and leakers to push their data, like back in 2008/2009. But that was before news organizations started using their own secure drop servers for sources. Once WikiLeaks sources started to not go to them, they started to look for other benefactors and sources. They found it in the Russian Government.
- throwaway2048 8y agoNews organizations are under no (legal) obligation to not be biased. Bias does not make wikileaks not a news organization.
- boomboomsubban 8y agoAgain, nothing suggesting they are knowingly working with the Russians. Wikileaks quality has surely dropped. They are still the press, and any prosecution by the US will be over things like the Manning links, a direct attack on the freedom of the press.
- busterarm 8y agoThere are hardly any news organizations anymore, given the events and media financial climate of the last few years. There are no true scotsmen either.
- StanislavPetrov 8y ago>They have been to be a known tool for the Russian government Known by whom? Its been over 2 years and there has still been absolutely no evidence released at all proving this. Claims made by the CIA, the US government or anyone else are proof of nothing, despite what you may think. >even going as far as creating a show for Julian Assange on the state-backed RT TV Network. Larry King has a show on RT too, is he an agent of the Russians also? The fact is that RT gives all sorts of people shows - especially people who make us look bad. What is really unfortunate is that so many of those shows are able to make us look bad without lying at all. They just have to give a platform to people (like Chris Hedges) willing to report on the many misdeeds we have, and continue, to commit. The Russians are no angels and neither are we. The very heart of this case is about freedom of the press and free speech. If we let the government decide who is "legitimate" and who is allowed to publish then there is no "freedom of the press" at all.
- midniteslayr 8y agosigh ... The current Secretary of State (and former CIA Director) has directly called out and said that WikiLeaks has done work for the GRU or the Russian Intelligence. https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2017-speeches-testimony/pompeo-delivers-remarks-at-csis.html https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2017... This shit is easy to lookup ... and the fact of the matter is, trying to claim that "we" are as bad as the Russians is the same shit Putin does to dispel any criticism against his fucked up regime's actions. No matter how bad the US has been in Wars and sticking their fingers in democratic elections, the Russians are 10 times as worse and they know it.
- monocasa 8y agoJust because you italicize "sigh" doesn't make you any more right. I've found it easier just to assume that the heads of national security are lying. They've been caught perjuring themselves too many times to count.
- StanislavPetrov 8y ago> The current Secretary of State (and former CIA Director) has directly called out and said that WikiLeaks has done work for the GRU or the Russian Intelligence. https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2017.. https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2017.... Not sure what part of "claim" you don't understand. It doesn't matter who makes the claim. Claims by the Secretary of State or the CIA are no more credible than claims by you or I if they don't come with evidence we can independently scrutinize. Older people should have learned this lesson in 2003 with the WMD debacle. Those of us who are even older should have learned it at the Gulf of Tonkin. >trying to claim that "we" are as bad as the Russians is the same shit Putin does to dispel any criticism against his fucked up regime's actions. Demanding evidence I can scrutinize is not "dispelling criticism". If you trust the evidence- free claims of the government (or anyone else) - on any matter - you are incredibly naive. Unfortunately you aren't alone.
- yholio 8y agoAll governments use the media, that does not mean the media should not be free. Even journalists from Russia Today should not be imprisoned for what they write, for example. By selectively prosecuting non-violent speech, a state denies freedom to all journalists, because it asserts itself as the ultimate censor of what is acceptable to publish and what not. You get a massive dilemma: are the other, non-imprisoned journalists, the "real" journalists or are they simply afraid to say the truth because truth lands you in prison?
- kebman 8y agoPretty ironic when the first comment got deleted. WikiLeaks is of course a news organisation. There is no "especially" when it comes to freedom of the press. Besides, it's not medling to show the truth. Btw. state owned or not (hint: the BBC is also "state-backed") RT is also a news organisation.
- AnaniasAnanas 8y agoTrue, they are not a news organisation in the common sense, they are a leaks organisation which comes pretty close however. > especially when they released campaign emails during the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election As a leaks organisation this is what their job is about: leaking information, emails this time. Was Wikileaks biased on what they released? Probably, but to my knowledge they did not release anything false - this would be similar to prosecuting say the guardian people for publishing the Snowden leaks, after all some would consider them "left wing" and "biased". I believe that especially America that was founded on the principle of freedom should take the principle of free speech more seriously.