3 ms·
The difference seems to be that most journalists report on the leaked documents, whereas Wikileaks essentially data dumps it. Not saying them releasing Podesta
by jsgo 8y ago
The difference seems to be that most journalists report on the leaked documents, whereas Wikileaks essentially data dumps it.
Not saying them releasing Podesta's emails was bad, just I don't think that's what journalists typically do.
- xienze 8y ago>The difference seems to be that most journalists report on the leaked documents, whereas Wikileaks essentially data dumps it. Would anyone have taken them seriously if they just made claims about what were on the emails? You see the same thing going on with the Democrats regarding the summary of the Mueller report: “we don’t believe you, show us the raw data!”
- mikeyouse 8y agoDumping the Podesta emails in the hour after Trump's "grab them by the pussy" tape came to light sure gives them the stink of partisan operatives. Lying about Seth Rich's involvement in the emails was cruel and deeply unethical. Giving air to bizarre conspiracy theories about the Clintons satanic rituals was also unethical from a 'media' organization. Not sure if anything that happened was illegal (leaning toward no) but they were basically indistinguishable from a campaign arm in 2016.
- jsgo 8y agoI've personally never went to wikileaks looking at information gathered, but consumed it second hand from journalists reporting on it. As such, I didn't have a problem taking Snowden's leaks seriously yet wasn't eyeballing raw data (nor did the vast majority of people who read about it), so I'll have to disagree. What you have with the Democrats and the Mueller report is that the "journalist" in this case is the Attorney General who was put into the position by the guy the Mueller report is about. As such, it is a case of not trusting the messenger due to bias so they want to see the actual report.