3 ms·

The whole Seth Rich debacle is the most obvious example in which they strongly implied that he was the source of leaked DNC docs. We later found out that Wikil

by slg 5y ago

The whole Seth Rich debacle is the most obvious example in which they strongly implied that he was the source of leaked DNC docs. We later found out that Wikileaks was still in contact with the source after Seth Rich was already dead. There are plenty of source links in the Wikipedia article[1]. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#WikiLeaks_statements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#WikiLeaks_...

cwkoss 5y ago
Ah, that's fair. Wikileaks' twitter account played much faster and looser than what they published on their website. I'm curious if we'll ever get an accounting of the internal organizational power struggles that occurred during the 2016 election. It felt like Assange and his proxies were seeking vengeance through Twitter (to be fair, its claimed Hillary Clinton joked "Can't we just drone this guy" about Assange - no lack of bad blood between them), but that somehow never seemed to bleed onto the Wikileaks website itself.
pydry 5y ago
Strongly implied by saying "we don't comment on who our sources are"? It's not clear that Wikileaks even knew who their source was.
- AutumnCurtain 5y ago
  While you might not know who your source was, if you're in contact with them after the proposed contact point's death you clearly are aware it is not that person. They played coy when they knew overtly he was not the contact point.
  - pydry 5y ago
    Is a good journalist supposed to hint revealingly with a nod and a wink and compromise their source? Isn't the whole point that they supposed to play coy?
    - slg 5y ago
      There is a difference between "playing coy" and defaming a dead person by implying they committed a crime. Denying Seth Rich as the source wouldn't have revealed the actual source. Plus it was more than "playing coy". For example, they promised a reward for people who came forward with info on Rich's death. Why do that if they had no relation to him?
      - pydry 5y ago
        Again, I really did miss the part where saying "we don't reveal who our sources are" is the same thing as calling a dead man a criminal. >For example, they promised a reward for people who came forward with info on Rich's death. Why do that if they had no relation to him? To try and uncover suspected corruption and leak it if there was more to his murder than met the eye. It was reasonable to suspect something was up. Honestly the fact that this didn't occur to you is a little strange.
        slg 5y ago
        >Again, I really did miss the part where saying "we don't reveal who our sources are" is the same thing as calling a dead man a criminal. Who said they are the same thing? I repeatedly used "implied". You are framing it as if they were asked a direct question about Seth Rich and their only response was "no comment." They said stuff like this[1]: >“Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks. There is a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, who was shot in the back. Murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington,” said Julian Assange appearing on a Dutch television program called Nieuwsuur. >Assange added, “We have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States and that our sources are, you know, our sources face serious risks that is why they come to us so we can protect their anonymity.” He is directly implying that Rich was killed for political reasons, that he was a whisleblower, and then in the next sentence he says "our sources". Do you not see the implication in talking like that? >To try and uncover suspected corruption and leak it if there was more to his murder than met the eye. It was reasonable to suspect something was up. The problem, like elsewhere with Wikileaks, is the selective search to uncover corruption. I would have no complaint if Wikileaks made it standard to always offer a reward for information on the death of any political staffer. The problem is that they only offered the reward for this specific staffer already knowing that there was a conspiracy theory that he was their source. That gives them plausible deniability that they are "just seeking truth" while also reinforcing the perceived connection between Seth Rich and Wikileaks. [1] - https://www.cbs19news.com/story/41466407/wikileaks-offers-20k-reward-for-information-about-dnc-staffers-death https://www.cbs19news.com/story/41466407/wikileaks-offers-20...

by slg 5y ago

cwkoss 5y ago

Ah, that's fair. Wikileaks' twitter account played much faster and looser than what they published on their website. I'm curious if we'll ever get an accounting of the internal organizational power struggles that occurred during the 2016 election. It felt like Assange and his proxies were seeking vengeance through Twitter (to be fair, its claimed Hillary Clinton joked "Can't we just drone this guy" about Assange - no lack of bad blood between them), but that somehow never seemed to bleed onto the Wikileaks website itself.

pydry 5y ago

Strongly implied by saying "we don't comment on who our sources are"? It's not clear that Wikileaks even knew who their source was.

AutumnCurtain 5y ago
While you might not know who your source was, if you're in contact with them after the proposed contact point's death you clearly are aware it is not that person. They played coy when they knew overtly he was not the contact point.
- pydry 5y ago
  Is a good journalist supposed to hint revealingly with a nod and a wink and compromise their source? Isn't the whole point that they supposed to play coy?
  - slg 5y ago
    There is a difference between "playing coy" and defaming a dead person by implying they committed a crime. Denying Seth Rich as the source wouldn't have revealed the actual source. Plus it was more than "playing coy". For example, they promised a reward for people who came forward with info on Rich's death. Why do that if they had no relation to him?
    - pydry 5y ago
      Again, I really did miss the part where saying "we don't reveal who our sources are" is the same thing as calling a dead man a criminal. >For example, they promised a reward for people who came forward with info on Rich's death. Why do that if they had no relation to him? To try and uncover suspected corruption and leak it if there was more to his murder than met the eye. It was reasonable to suspect something was up. Honestly the fact that this didn't occur to you is a little strange.
      - slg 5y ago
        >Again, I really did miss the part where saying "we don't reveal who our sources are" is the same thing as calling a dead man a criminal. Who said they are the same thing? I repeatedly used "implied". You are framing it as if they were asked a direct question about Seth Rich and their only response was "no comment." They said stuff like this[1]: >“Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks. There is a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, who was shot in the back. Murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington,” said Julian Assange appearing on a Dutch television program called Nieuwsuur. >Assange added, “We have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States and that our sources are, you know, our sources face serious risks that is why they come to us so we can protect their anonymity.” He is directly implying that Rich was killed for political reasons, that he was a whisleblower, and then in the next sentence he says "our sources". Do you not see the implication in talking like that? >To try and uncover suspected corruption and leak it if there was more to his murder than met the eye. It was reasonable to suspect something was up. The problem, like elsewhere with Wikileaks, is the selective search to uncover corruption. I would have no complaint if Wikileaks made it standard to always offer a reward for information on the death of any political staffer. The problem is that they only offered the reward for this specific staffer already knowing that there was a conspiracy theory that he was their source. That gives them plausible deniability that they are "just seeking truth" while also reinforcing the perceived connection between Seth Rich and Wikileaks. [1] - https://www.cbs19news.com/story/41466407/wikileaks-offers-20k-reward-for-information-about-dnc-staffers-death https://www.cbs19news.com/story/41466407/wikileaks-offers-20...