5 ms·

I think he is too dumb to realize he was used as a Russian asset. The attention whoring he is known for blinded him. While dumb, I don't think he has specifica

I think he is too dumb to realize he was used as a Russian asset. The attention whoring he is known for blinded him. While dumb, I don't think he has specifically kept secrets about Trump. His actions show a definite agenda. Act two, he just doesn't realize that it is someone else's agenda.

cwkoss 8y ago
If the New York Times gets an anonymous tip from a Russian spy (which is fact checked and found to be true), would you consider the New York Times as a Russian asset? Where is the line? When is transmitting factual information to the public journalism and when is it not?
- metildaa 8y ago
  It seems this line is usually drawn based on political leanings by commenters, which is a poor way of drawing said line.
- azernik 8y ago
  If they then release it without reporting on context, taking the Russian source's politically-motivated narrative at face value? Absolutely. Same as if they're acting as a politician's assets if they do likewise with an anonymous political source, only with the added twist of international politics.
  - resters 8y ago
    I don't think this holds up. Who leaks information to a journalist and doesn't have some kind of motive for doing so? Wikileaks actually changes the game on malicious leaks because it won't publish the typical "a high ranking source who wishes not to be named claims that ___" rubbish. Instead, it forces the source to provide the full context of the leak in the form of complete documents. Think about how much mischief a high ranking official could cause by leaking selective or misleading tidbits to reporters... FWIW it happens all the time for obviously political reasons. For typical journalists, the relationship with those high ranking sources is a major form of career capital, and so the journalist must accept whatever tidbits are offered, and is incentivized to present them as requested by the source. In the normal press, leaks are used as propaganda by government officials all the time and journalists play along happily, not caring that they are often spreading propaganda in the form of off the record comments. WL operates at an entirely different level and demands that sources not engage in mischief and supply the source material in its entirety so that the material can be judged on its own merits.
    - azernik 8y ago
      Leakers always have motivations. That's why reporters need to not take their leaks at face value, and do reporting to expand on the information they receive.
      - cwkoss 8y ago
        How can presenting a subjective and potentially-biased interpretation of a primary source be better journalism than presenting the primary source itself?
        azernik 8y ago
        Because the primary sources are often (as in the case of deliberate leaks that we're talking about here) subjective and definitely/intentionally biased. The journalist's job is to provide context and interpretation that are as objective as possible, even though absolute objectivity is impossible.
        cwkoss 8y ago
        I don't understand how a primary source can be biased. It is factual evidence in and of itself. Wikileaks' leaks have little to no editorialization (Usually there is a 'summary' in front of the db). Have you read the content of wikileaks' leaks? Their twitter account is a partisan mess, but their actual leaks are some of the most solid journalism of our era.
  - akvadrako 8y ago
    WL has a much better reputation for authenticity than NYT. So far nothing they have released was found to be fabricated or doctored.
kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
The attention whoring is insurance against being disappeared.
- paulie_a 8y ago
  In his case it may have started out that way, but eventually devolved after he wasn't getting the attention anymore. He became irrelevant but still wanted the same fame. He might have shined some light on things, then he became a douchebag because of that fame. But honestly he probably was always a douchebag.

cwkoss 8y ago

If the New York Times gets an anonymous tip from a Russian spy (which is fact checked and found to be true), would you consider the New York Times as a Russian asset? Where is the line? When is transmitting factual information to the public journalism and when is it not?

metildaa 8y ago
It seems this line is usually drawn based on political leanings by commenters, which is a poor way of drawing said line.
azernik 8y ago
If they then release it without reporting on context, taking the Russian source's politically-motivated narrative at face value? Absolutely. Same as if they're acting as a politician's assets if they do likewise with an anonymous political source, only with the added twist of international politics.
- resters 8y ago
  I don't think this holds up. Who leaks information to a journalist and doesn't have some kind of motive for doing so? Wikileaks actually changes the game on malicious leaks because it won't publish the typical "a high ranking source who wishes not to be named claims that ___" rubbish. Instead, it forces the source to provide the full context of the leak in the form of complete documents. Think about how much mischief a high ranking official could cause by leaking selective or misleading tidbits to reporters... FWIW it happens all the time for obviously political reasons. For typical journalists, the relationship with those high ranking sources is a major form of career capital, and so the journalist must accept whatever tidbits are offered, and is incentivized to present them as requested by the source. In the normal press, leaks are used as propaganda by government officials all the time and journalists play along happily, not caring that they are often spreading propaganda in the form of off the record comments. WL operates at an entirely different level and demands that sources not engage in mischief and supply the source material in its entirety so that the material can be judged on its own merits.
  - azernik 8y ago
    Leakers always have motivations. That's why reporters need to not take their leaks at face value, and do reporting to expand on the information they receive.
    - cwkoss 8y ago
      How can presenting a subjective and potentially-biased interpretation of a primary source be better journalism than presenting the primary source itself?
      - azernik 8y ago
        Because the primary sources are often (as in the case of deliberate leaks that we're talking about here) subjective and definitely/intentionally biased. The journalist's job is to provide context and interpretation that are as objective as possible, even though absolute objectivity is impossible.
        cwkoss 8y ago
        I don't understand how a primary source can be biased. It is factual evidence in and of itself. Wikileaks' leaks have little to no editorialization (Usually there is a 'summary' in front of the db). Have you read the content of wikileaks' leaks? Their twitter account is a partisan mess, but their actual leaks are some of the most solid journalism of our era.
- akvadrako 8y ago
  WL has a much better reputation for authenticity than NYT. So far nothing they have released was found to be fabricated or doctored.

kevin_thibedeau 8y ago

The attention whoring is insurance against being disappeared.

paulie_a 8y ago
In his case it may have started out that way, but eventually devolved after he wasn't getting the attention anymore. He became irrelevant but still wanted the same fame. He might have shined some light on things, then he became a douchebag because of that fame. But honestly he probably was always a douchebag.