4 ms·

Who better than a conspiracy theorist to report on actual conspiracies?

tablespoon 5y ago
> Who better than a conspiracy theorist to report on actual conspiracies? Conspiracy theorists don't typically report on real conspiracies, they report on imagined ones. So having a conspiracy theorist report on a real conspiracy can actually have the effect of making the real conspiracy less believable (e.g. a stopped clock may be right twice a day, but you'll disbelieve it even then).
- semanticsbitch 5y ago
  So said absolutely nothing new here and ignored the question asked to you
0110101001 5y ago
He claimed that he received the DNC and Podesta e-mails from a disgruntled DNC source in a park and forwarded them to WikiLeaks on Assange's behalf. He lacks any credibility. Even Assange had to tell people that "Craig Murray is not authorized to talk on behalf of WikiLeaks," afterwards.
- mhh__ 5y ago
  Anyone reading this is free to make of Murray what they want but I genuinely think he is a textbook useful idiot. He obviously has a grudge against the west, sometimes he's a useful counterpoint but other times he's literally just spreading FUD in favour of whoever is not the west (i.e. they weren't GRU agents, they were a gay couple, honest!)
user-the-name 5y ago
Literally anyone would be better to report on it. Conspiracy theorists are absolutely awful at reporting facts. When talking about things that are actually true, they often still manage to mix in so many untrue and misleading things that the actual truth gets clouded.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  The UK's tabloid media are even worse at reporting facts. They're also notorious for hacking phones and spying on people. Murray may or may not have done something stupid, he may or may not have said things that were inaccurate. But he's still basically a blogger with a relatively insignificant profile. Not a national figure with a huge reach. When an ancient law gets dusted off and thrown at someone like him, while much more obvious media transgressions are ignored, it becomes very hard to conclude that this has anything to do with a disinterested thirst for fairness and justice.
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    They are absolutely godawful, yes. But worse than conspiracy theorists? No. And he got the law thrown at him and they did not for the simple reason that he broke the law, and they did not.

> Who better than a conspiracy theorist to report on actual conspiracies? Conspiracy theorists don't typically report on real conspiracies, they report on imagined ones. So having a conspiracy theorist report on a real conspiracy can actually have the effect of making the real conspiracy less believable (e.g. a stopped clock may be right twice a day, but you'll disbelieve it even then).

semanticsbitch 5y ago
So said absolutely nothing new here and ignored the question asked to you

0110101001 5y ago

He claimed that he received the DNC and Podesta e-mails from a disgruntled DNC source in a park and forwarded them to WikiLeaks on Assange's behalf. He lacks any credibility. Even Assange had to tell people that "Craig Murray is not authorized to talk on behalf of WikiLeaks," afterwards.

mhh__ 5y ago
Anyone reading this is free to make of Murray what they want but I genuinely think he is a textbook useful idiot. He obviously has a grudge against the west, sometimes he's a useful counterpoint but other times he's literally just spreading FUD in favour of whoever is not the west (i.e. they weren't GRU agents, they were a gay couple, honest!)

user-the-name 5y ago

Literally anyone would be better to report on it. Conspiracy theorists are absolutely awful at reporting facts. When talking about things that are actually true, they often still manage to mix in so many untrue and misleading things that the actual truth gets clouded.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
The UK's tabloid media are even worse at reporting facts. They're also notorious for hacking phones and spying on people. Murray may or may not have done something stupid, he may or may not have said things that were inaccurate. But he's still basically a blogger with a relatively insignificant profile. Not a national figure with a huge reach. When an ancient law gets dusted off and thrown at someone like him, while much more obvious media transgressions are ignored, it becomes very hard to conclude that this has anything to do with a disinterested thirst for fairness and justice.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  They are absolutely godawful, yes. But worse than conspiracy theorists? No. And he got the law thrown at him and they did not for the simple reason that he broke the law, and they did not.