5 ms·

I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. Journalists get imprisoned, killed, etc all the time. Somehow taking steps to mitigate those risks makes y

by jascii 7y ago

I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. Journalists get imprisoned, killed, etc all the time. Somehow taking steps to mitigate those risks makes you not a journalist?

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
Hiding major stories to protect yourself seems somewhat antithetical to being a journalist. Hiding major stories when you're journalist cred is "expose all the secrets" is, at a minimum, you not being who you say you are.
- jascii 7y ago
  Ok, so now we have people claiming Wikileaks is not a journalistic organisation for "just dumping the leaks" and people claiming the exact same thing for the completely opposite reasons.. Damned if you do, damned if you don't I guess.. What on earth makes you think Wikileaks is "Hiding major stories to protect yourself"? Is there a single shred of credible data suggesting that? And even if that's what in the "insurance file" can you fricking blame them for trying to protect their lives?! I don't know what's in the "insurance file", I doubt you do either. Maybe it's a major story, maybe it's data of no public interest but still extremely inconvenient to the powers that be. Maybe it's nothing -- just an empty threat. All I know is that I won't condemn Wikileaks solely based on speculations or verifiable smear-campaigns.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    "Extremely inconvenient to the powers that be" sounds like "major story" to me. So, to me, the existence of the "insurance file" is exactly "hiding major stories to protect yourself". Unless it was a bluff. One could speculate that Wikileaks guessed that everybody major has something to hide, and therefore the threatened existence of the "insurance file" would be an effective threat.
    - jascii 7y ago
      > "Extremely inconvenient to the powers that be" sounds like "major story" to me. Doesn't have to be, it could be already broken stories without potentially dangerous or personally identifiable details redacted. Or any of a number of other things. All we have here is speculation, and speculation is not a very good way to determine the nature of an organization.

by jascii 7y ago

I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. Journalists get imprisoned, killed, etc all the time. Somehow taking steps to mitigate those risks makes you not a journalist?

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

Hiding major stories to protect yourself seems somewhat antithetical to being a journalist. Hiding major stories when you're journalist cred is "expose all the secrets" is, at a minimum, you not being who you say you are.

jascii 7y ago
Ok, so now we have people claiming Wikileaks is not a journalistic organisation for "just dumping the leaks" and people claiming the exact same thing for the completely opposite reasons.. Damned if you do, damned if you don't I guess.. What on earth makes you think Wikileaks is "Hiding major stories to protect yourself"? Is there a single shred of credible data suggesting that? And even if that's what in the "insurance file" can you fricking blame them for trying to protect their lives?! I don't know what's in the "insurance file", I doubt you do either. Maybe it's a major story, maybe it's data of no public interest but still extremely inconvenient to the powers that be. Maybe it's nothing -- just an empty threat. All I know is that I won't condemn Wikileaks solely based on speculations or verifiable smear-campaigns.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  "Extremely inconvenient to the powers that be" sounds like "major story" to me. So, to me, the existence of the "insurance file" is exactly "hiding major stories to protect yourself". Unless it was a bluff. One could speculate that Wikileaks guessed that everybody major has something to hide, and therefore the threatened existence of the "insurance file" would be an effective threat.
  - jascii 7y ago
    > "Extremely inconvenient to the powers that be" sounds like "major story" to me. Doesn't have to be, it could be already broken stories without potentially dangerous or personally identifiable details redacted. Or any of a number of other things. All we have here is speculation, and speculation is not a very good way to determine the nature of an organization.