5 ms·

I don't understand how publishing primary source documents, even selectively, can be called distortion of truth. The cablegate dump had many interesting revela

by cwkoss 8y ago

I don't understand how publishing primary source documents, even selectively, can be called distortion of truth. The cablegate dump had many interesting revelations https://theweek.com/articles/488953/wikileaks-cablegate-dump-10-biggest-revelations https://theweek.com/articles/488953/wikileaks-cablegate-dump... Some may believe it is in the public interest to hide US aggression to protect ourselves from repercussions. I think it is necessary to expose US aggression to public light to minimize its use altogether. If you can't justify an action to the public, perhaps you should not be spending taxpayer dollars to do it clandestinely.

kristjansson 8y ago
Selectively publishing primary source documents definitely _can_ be a distortion of truth. To take the most salient example: It seems reasonable that the internal sausage-making most political parties is similar - there are power dynamics, personal (and possibly institutional) preferences, etc. If WL were to receive leaks internal communication from two opposing parties, and only publish one while allowing the opposing side to maintain it's facade, that would clearly be a distortion of truth, right? I'm not insinuating that WL was actually presented with that decision in 2016, but it seems clear their acknowledged selectivity in publication is capable of distorting the true state of affairs.
- cwkoss 8y ago
  If both parties are withholding the truth from the public, revealing accurate documents is removing the distortion of truth (at least for one party). If WL had information about another party and chose not to release, it's not a distortion: the distortion already existed. But it would arguably be unethical to not act to end the distortion, if WL was capable of doing so.