4 ms·

>They routinely said that it held nothing of any interest (e.g. the story about the recipes - https://www.vox.com/2016/10/12/13253852/wikileaks-john-podes https

by slg 5y ago

>They routinely said that it held nothing of any interest (e.g. the story about the recipes - https://www.vox.com/2016/10/12/13253852/wikileaks-john-podes https://www.vox.com/2016/10/12/13253852/wikileaks-john-podes... ) but that it was also done to serve the interests of Russia and derailed the election - https://www.vox.com/2018/7/13/17569030/mueller-indictments-r https://www.vox.com/2018/7/13/17569030/mueller-indictments-r... Those two are not contradictory because the first one is based off the substance of the documents and the second one is based off the perception of the documents. Nothing too substantial was revealed but the existence of the emails was enough to feed into the existing narrative that Clinton couldn't be trusted and it therefore harmed her chances of winning. >The idea that truthfully informing voters about the views and actions of a candidate was reprehensible if it affected the outcome of the election was never actually justified, it was simply assumed. Because partial truthfulness isn't that different than lying. Imagine two scenarios: 1. Clinton gets the debate questions ahead of time. 2. Both candidates get the debate questions ahead of time. (Just a hypothetical and not a real accusation) Story 1 would lead you to believe the Clinton is corrupt and will abuse the system for her advantage. Those two traits were already two of the biggest criticisms of her. Story 2 would lead you to believe that it is the debate system that is corrupt and no specific candidate was at fault. Story 2 being true automatically means story 1 is also true. However if you knew that story 2 was true and reported it as story 1, are you still "truthfully informing voters about the views and actions of a candidate"? You are reporting facts but in such a way as to bias the story. I think that is certainly reprehensible from a journalistic standpoint. Many journalists believed that almost everything in the substance of these docs would be true for other candidates, they just didn't have the documents from other candidates as proof.

pydry 5y ago
>Nothing too substantial was revealed There was the email, if I remember, about expressing a heartfelt desire to see a FTA stretching across the whole continent. This was right after Hillary decided to rally against the TPP. This undermined that move and made it ring hollow. >the existence of the emails was enough to feed into the existing narrative that Clinton couldn't be trusted As opposed to diffing her public moves with what she said in the emails? You seriously think that the mere existence of leaked emails was enough to sway voters regardless of what was actually said in them? Bizarre.
- slg 5y ago
  I don't think it is unusual for a politician to be in support of a general policy while objecting to a specific implementation and/or expansion of that policy. And yes, the existence of the emails played a role in how people voted or whether they voted regardless of the content. I mean there was the whole pizzagate thing that was obviously independent of the actual substance of the emails.
  - pydry 5y ago
    You're saying that you think swing voters were probably more influenced by harebrained conspiracy theories pushed by meth addled Trump supporters than... the truth? That's some hubris.
    - slg 5y ago
      I don't know what "truth" you are remarking on here and pizzagate was just the most obvious and extreme example. Clearly there were people who were turned off by the leaks without actually reading the entire collection or even any of documents. These people were more reacting to the perception of the leaks in the zeitgeist than the actual substance of the documents they didn't read. I don't know what to say to you if we can't agree on that.
- creato 5y ago
  > As opposed to diffing her public moves with what she said in the emails? You seriously think that the mere existence of leaked emails was enough to sway voters regardless of what was actually said in them? Those same emails motivated someone to drive 300 miles to fire a gun in a pizza shop looking for a child sex ring in a basement that didn't exist. How's that for bizarre?
  - jimmydorry 5y ago
    You are conflating leaks. There was a DNC leak and a Podesta personal email leak. The Podesta leak started the fire, so to speak, while the DNC leak was attributed to Russian meddling.

by slg 5y ago

pydry 5y ago

>Nothing too substantial was revealed There was the email, if I remember, about expressing a heartfelt desire to see a FTA stretching across the whole continent. This was right after Hillary decided to rally against the TPP. This undermined that move and made it ring hollow. >the existence of the emails was enough to feed into the existing narrative that Clinton couldn't be trusted As opposed to diffing her public moves with what she said in the emails? You seriously think that the mere existence of leaked emails was enough to sway voters regardless of what was actually said in them? Bizarre.

slg 5y ago
I don't think it is unusual for a politician to be in support of a general policy while objecting to a specific implementation and/or expansion of that policy. And yes, the existence of the emails played a role in how people voted or whether they voted regardless of the content. I mean there was the whole pizzagate thing that was obviously independent of the actual substance of the emails.
- pydry 5y ago
  You're saying that you think swing voters were probably more influenced by harebrained conspiracy theories pushed by meth addled Trump supporters than... the truth? That's some hubris.
  - slg 5y ago
    I don't know what "truth" you are remarking on here and pizzagate was just the most obvious and extreme example. Clearly there were people who were turned off by the leaks without actually reading the entire collection or even any of documents. These people were more reacting to the perception of the leaks in the zeitgeist than the actual substance of the documents they didn't read. I don't know what to say to you if we can't agree on that.
creato 5y ago
> As opposed to diffing her public moves with what she said in the emails? You seriously think that the mere existence of leaked emails was enough to sway voters regardless of what was actually said in them? Those same emails motivated someone to drive 300 miles to fire a gun in a pizza shop looking for a child sex ring in a basement that didn't exist. How's that for bizarre?
- jimmydorry 5y ago
  You are conflating leaks. There was a DNC leak and a Podesta personal email leak. The Podesta leak started the fire, so to speak, while the DNC leak was attributed to Russian meddling.