3 ms·
But if those mails were arbitrary and meaningless why would the media ("mainstream media" without any kind of conspiracy vibe) make such a big deal out of it?
by OtomotO 4y ago
But if those mails were arbitrary and meaningless why would the media ("mainstream media" without any kind of conspiracy vibe) make such a big deal out of it?
Because of the timeframe?
Other than that I feel a democracy includes duties by the voters.
If, for whatever reason, they can't decide what to make of some information, it's a systematic problem.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mrguyorama 4y agoThis is the same media that pilloried Obama for wearing a tan suit, and ran a day long expose on Trump wanting an extra scoop of ice cream. Making a big deal out of meaningless stuff in politics is sort of their bread and butter.
- OtomotO 4y agoSo then this is the actual problem, yet Wikileaks was criticized for telling (part of) the truth?
- mrguyorama 4y agoThe US media absolutely is A problem, but telling partial truths doesn't actually count as telling the truth. Assange openly stated he judged leaks on "impact" and obviously timed things near the end of his tenure in order to stir more shit. I don't consider that airing dirty laundry, I consider that attempting to influence things. There is a difference between "look at this bad thing a person did, and consider it over a course of time so you can make reasoned decisions about it" and "THE ELECTION IS TOMORROW HERE'S STUFF THAT YOU CAN'T EVEN BE SURE IS TRUE NO TIME TO THINK JUST ACT ON IMPULSE".