3 ms·

Yes, sadly they do have a bias. Equally sadly, so do Fox, The NY Times, etc, etc.. Still, we need journalism. Attacking journalistic organisations just because

by jascii 7y ago

Yes, sadly they do have a bias. Equally sadly, so do Fox, The NY Times, etc, etc.. Still, we need journalism. Attacking journalistic organisations just because their bias doesn't fit yours is a slippery slope.

iudqnolq 7y ago
I'm not attacking a journalistic organization for having a bias, because WikiLeaks isn't a journalistic organization. One piece of evidence for that is that they have moved to focusing on publishing only what will advance the goals of Russian inteigence. Another is that when journalists receive a leak they work to authenticate it, ensure it's in the public interest, redact unnecessary personal information, work with whoever is being leaked from (eg the US government) to provide advance notice to minimize harms to ongoing operations, and then release commentery on the leak. WikiLeaks doesn't.
- jascii 7y ago
  Nice talking points, to bad they are verifiable nonsense: > One piece of evidence for that is that they have moved to focusing on publishing only what will advance the goals of Russian inteigence. https://wikileaks.org//spyfiles/russia/ https://wikileaks.org//spyfiles/russia/ You think Russian intel is happy about this? > Another is that when journalists receive a leak they work to authenticate it, ensure it's in the public interest, redact unnecessary personal information, work with whoever is being leaked from (eg the US government) to provide advance notice to minimize harms to ongoing operations, and then release commentery on the leak. WikiLeaks doesn't. Wikileaks goes through rigorous protocols to guarantee the authenticity of its material, as far as I know there has been zero claims against the correctness of the materials published. Show me one other journalistic organisation with such a track record. Wikipedia has also made several attempts to coordinate with stakeholders towards responsible disclosure, including with the US government. They were simply stonewalled and would not take "don't publish any of it" as an answer.
  - iudqnolq 7y ago
    Has WikiLeaks ever redacted irrelevant personal information? No, they simply publish everything in a dump, regardless of if it will harm lives and provide no journalistic value.
    - jascii 7y ago
      Moving the goalpost? Yes they have, and sometimes they haven't. Just like most journalistic organizations..
      - iudqnolq 7y ago
        Can you link to a single file WikiLeaks redacted something because of the harms of publishing it.
        monocasa 7y ago
        https://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/22/wikileaks.editing/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/22/wikileaks.editing/index.ht...
        jascii 7y ago
        Can you link to a single piece of evidence backing your accusations?
- fit2rule 7y ago
  You know whats' worse for America than Wikileaks? Americas war crimes and crimes against humanity. Wikileaks IS a journalistic organization, and nothing you can say will change that. Again, just because you don't like their position, doesn't reduce their effectiveness at journalistic endeavours - and they were very, very effective at getting people to pay attention to, and discuss, the heinous conditions of US intelligence agencies and the dire corruption therein which permits further crimes against humanity being committed in the name of the American people. It is GOOD FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE to have had the Wikileaks - and Snowden leaks - saga occur. This was not 'good for Russia' - but it was bad for 'American warmongers who were, literally, getting away with murder'. The narrative that Wikileaks was 'against America but pro- Russia' is not only specious, but a clear indicator of duding the real nature of the leaks: America's out of control military industrial pharmaceutical complex. The fact that we're not discussing the contents of the leaks, but rather the nature by which they were exposed to the world, is a classic intelligence-stooge distraction technique. Stay focused. Have you read the Wikileaks? If you're an American citizen, they are of immense value to you, with regards to knowing the key agents in your society which actually prevent your democracy from functioning. If it weren't for Wikileaks, we wouldn't have learned of the DNC's dire corruption, for example. This was a very, very positive action for the American people - who have been being duped by their "two party 'system'" for decades, such that they truly believe its a democracy they're involved in. As we have learned from Wikileaks, nothing could be further from the truth. American citizens should be very grateful for having had these criminals secrets' revealed, and they should be highly alarmed at anyone who says this "hurt America" without giving actual, real evidence. Because so far, Wikileaks has been positive for America.

by jascii 7y ago

iudqnolq 7y ago

I'm not attacking a journalistic organization for having a bias, because WikiLeaks isn't a journalistic organization. One piece of evidence for that is that they have moved to focusing on publishing only what will advance the goals of Russian inteigence. Another is that when journalists receive a leak they work to authenticate it, ensure it's in the public interest, redact unnecessary personal information, work with whoever is being leaked from (eg the US government) to provide advance notice to minimize harms to ongoing operations, and then release commentery on the leak. WikiLeaks doesn't.

jascii 7y ago
Nice talking points, to bad they are verifiable nonsense: > One piece of evidence for that is that they have moved to focusing on publishing only what will advance the goals of Russian inteigence. https://wikileaks.org//spyfiles/russia/ https://wikileaks.org//spyfiles/russia/ You think Russian intel is happy about this? > Another is that when journalists receive a leak they work to authenticate it, ensure it's in the public interest, redact unnecessary personal information, work with whoever is being leaked from (eg the US government) to provide advance notice to minimize harms to ongoing operations, and then release commentery on the leak. WikiLeaks doesn't. Wikileaks goes through rigorous protocols to guarantee the authenticity of its material, as far as I know there has been zero claims against the correctness of the materials published. Show me one other journalistic organisation with such a track record. Wikipedia has also made several attempts to coordinate with stakeholders towards responsible disclosure, including with the US government. They were simply stonewalled and would not take "don't publish any of it" as an answer.
- iudqnolq 7y ago
  Has WikiLeaks ever redacted irrelevant personal information? No, they simply publish everything in a dump, regardless of if it will harm lives and provide no journalistic value.
  - jascii 7y ago
    Moving the goalpost? Yes they have, and sometimes they haven't. Just like most journalistic organizations..
    - iudqnolq 7y ago
      Can you link to a single file WikiLeaks redacted something because of the harms of publishing it.
      - monocasa 7y ago
        https://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/22/wikileaks.editing/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/22/wikileaks.editing/index.ht...
      - jascii 7y ago
        Can you link to a single piece of evidence backing your accusations?
fit2rule 7y ago
You know whats' worse for America than Wikileaks? Americas war crimes and crimes against humanity. Wikileaks IS a journalistic organization, and nothing you can say will change that. Again, just because you don't like their position, doesn't reduce their effectiveness at journalistic endeavours - and they were very, very effective at getting people to pay attention to, and discuss, the heinous conditions of US intelligence agencies and the dire corruption therein which permits further crimes against humanity being committed in the name of the American people. It is GOOD FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE to have had the Wikileaks - and Snowden leaks - saga occur. This was not 'good for Russia' - but it was bad for 'American warmongers who were, literally, getting away with murder'. The narrative that Wikileaks was 'against America but pro- Russia' is not only specious, but a clear indicator of duding the real nature of the leaks: America's out of control military industrial pharmaceutical complex. The fact that we're not discussing the contents of the leaks, but rather the nature by which they were exposed to the world, is a classic intelligence-stooge distraction technique. Stay focused. Have you read the Wikileaks? If you're an American citizen, they are of immense value to you, with regards to knowing the key agents in your society which actually prevent your democracy from functioning. If it weren't for Wikileaks, we wouldn't have learned of the DNC's dire corruption, for example. This was a very, very positive action for the American people - who have been being duped by their "two party 'system'" for decades, such that they truly believe its a democracy they're involved in. As we have learned from Wikileaks, nothing could be further from the truth. American citizens should be very grateful for having had these criminals secrets' revealed, and they should be highly alarmed at anyone who says this "hurt America" without giving actual, real evidence. Because so far, Wikileaks has been positive for America.