4 ms·

2 people run for office, both committed a crime. 1 of them supports Russia in their ongoing aggression. So Russia has WikiLeaks post only the information on the

2 people run for office, both committed a crime. 1 of them supports Russia in their ongoing aggression. So Russia has WikiLeaks post only the information on the candidate they don't like, securing the election for a politically favorable but perhaps even more corrupt person. How and what information is being presented is an incredibly important part of "the truth" as a whole.

TeeMassive 5y ago
> 2 people run for office, both committed a crime. 1 of them supports Russia in their ongoing aggression. This is simply not supported by the policies enacted during by the Trump Administration: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/09/25/on-the-record-the-u-s-administrations-actions-on-russia/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/09/25/o... > So Russia has WikiLeaks post only the information on the candidate they don't like, securing the election for a politically favorable but perhaps even more corrupt person. There are three answers for that: If Wikileaks has a bias than it can easily explained by the fact that Assange's woes were caused by the Obama admistration. And even if they didn't have a bias, most of their staff at Wikileaks do not speak Russian and they try to verify every piece they publish; as opposed to making claims based on partisan funded opposition research. It's also far harder to leak from Russia and other authoritarian/mafious states and also because their intelligence agencies use mechanical typewriters.
xgb84j 5y ago
There are 4 things he could have done: 1. Don't reveal any secrets. 2A Reveal secrets that harm candidate A. 2B Reveal secrets that harm candidate B. 3. Reveal all secrets that harm candidate A and candidate B. I don't think anybody on HN argues that option 3 is preferable over all the other options. You seem to think option 1 is preferable to both options 2A and 2B. GP and I seem to think the opposite. I can understand your argument that half the truth can be worse than no truth at all. But as there are very few sources for information like WikiLeaks I think in cases like this, half the truth might be all the public can get and it at least gives you a basic idea of what is happening when nobody is looking.
- leephillips 5y ago
  “I don't think anybody on HN argues that option 3 is preferable over all the other options.” Really? I think that’s probably the most popular option. Why do you say that?
  - cookie_monsta 5y ago
    Agreed. The journalistic options here are 1 and 3. 2A and B are what propagandists do.
  - xgb84j 5y ago
    I missed a _not_ in that sentence. I and most other people on HN obviously want to know everything.
    - leephillips 5y ago
      Oh, well.
- a1369209993 5y ago
  > I don't think anybody on HN argues that option 3 is preferable over all the other options. From context, ITYM "disputes", not "argues". Or least that's the only way your comment makes sense; "argues" a position generally refers to supporting that position.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  You suspect two murders. One by dnc and one by rnc. You have video of the dnc one and you don't show it because you lack the other video? You hide the truth because it is not fair to the first murder that you don't have proof of the other?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
DangitBobby 5y ago
I find this whole conversation to be slightly ironic given the first sentence of the article is > As we have pointed out since Media Lens began in 2001, a fundamental feature of corporate media is propaganda by omission.

TeeMassive 5y ago

> 2 people run for office, both committed a crime. 1 of them supports Russia in their ongoing aggression. This is simply not supported by the policies enacted during by the Trump Administration: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/09/25/on-the-record-the-u-s-administrations-actions-on-russia/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/09/25/o... > So Russia has WikiLeaks post only the information on the candidate they don't like, securing the election for a politically favorable but perhaps even more corrupt person. There are three answers for that: If Wikileaks has a bias than it can easily explained by the fact that Assange's woes were caused by the Obama admistration. And even if they didn't have a bias, most of their staff at Wikileaks do not speak Russian and they try to verify every piece they publish; as opposed to making claims based on partisan funded opposition research. It's also far harder to leak from Russia and other authoritarian/mafious states and also because their intelligence agencies use mechanical typewriters.

xgb84j 5y ago

There are 4 things he could have done: 1. Don't reveal any secrets. 2A Reveal secrets that harm candidate A. 2B Reveal secrets that harm candidate B. 3. Reveal all secrets that harm candidate A and candidate B. I don't think anybody on HN argues that option 3 is preferable over all the other options. You seem to think option 1 is preferable to both options 2A and 2B. GP and I seem to think the opposite. I can understand your argument that half the truth can be worse than no truth at all. But as there are very few sources for information like WikiLeaks I think in cases like this, half the truth might be all the public can get and it at least gives you a basic idea of what is happening when nobody is looking.

leephillips 5y ago
“I don't think anybody on HN argues that option 3 is preferable over all the other options.” Really? I think that’s probably the most popular option. Why do you say that?
- cookie_monsta 5y ago
  Agreed. The journalistic options here are 1 and 3. 2A and B are what propagandists do.
- xgb84j 5y ago
  I missed a _not_ in that sentence. I and most other people on HN obviously want to know everything.
  - leephillips 5y ago
    Oh, well.
a1369209993 5y ago
> I don't think anybody on HN argues that option 3 is preferable over all the other options. From context, ITYM "disputes", not "argues". Or least that's the only way your comment makes sense; "argues" a position generally refers to supporting that position.
ipaddr 5y ago
You suspect two murders. One by dnc and one by rnc. You have video of the dnc one and you don't show it because you lack the other video? You hide the truth because it is not fair to the first murder that you don't have proof of the other?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

DangitBobby 5y ago

I find this whole conversation to be slightly ironic given the first sentence of the article is > As we have pointed out since Media Lens began in 2001, a fundamental feature of corporate media is propaganda by omission.