5 ms·

If a "credible" (read: state-approved) news organization had released those emails, would you have the same thoughts toward them?

hadrien01 8y ago
News 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 ago
  But there was an election around the corner, they can't be bothered with any of that.
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  Why is that better than releasing all the emails at once? Why do they get to decide what's "pertinent"?
  - 1001101 8y ago
    I 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 ago
    For 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 ago
    A 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 ago
    DNC 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 ago
A 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 ago
  Which 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 ago
    The 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 ago
      That had nothing to do with Assange or WikiLeaks.
    - shekelstien 8y ago
      That’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 ago
Why 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 ago
  Would you support it if the DNC had run a similar campaign supporting Clinton against Obama in 08?
  - krapp 8y ago
    The 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 ago
      I 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 ago
        Maybe 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

hadrien01 8y ago

News 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 ago
But there was an election around the corner, they can't be bothered with any of that.
thaumasiotes 8y ago
Why is that better than releasing all the emails at once? Why do they get to decide what's "pertinent"?
- 1001101 8y ago
  I 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 ago
  For 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 ago
  A 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 ago
  DNC 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 ago

A 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 ago
Which 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    That had nothing to do with Assange or WikiLeaks.
  - shekelstien 8y ago
    That’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 ago

Why 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 ago
Would you support it if the DNC had run a similar campaign supporting Clinton against Obama in 08?
- krapp 8y ago
  The 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      Maybe 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