3 ms·

The major issue is that if a whistleblower takes side, its no longer whistleblowing but espionage. Maybe there was stuff that could have hurt Trump but wasn't r

by mrtksn 4y ago

The major issue is that if a whistleblower takes side, its no longer whistleblowing but espionage. Maybe there was stuff that could have hurt Trump but wasn't released? His presidency wasn't a smooth sail and ended with a bang. We wouldn't know because there's no ant-Trump whistleblower organisation.

boomboomsubban 4y ago
>The major issue is that if a whistleblower takes side, its no longer whistleblowing but espionage What? So if I'm an employee of the DNC, and I want to blow the whistle on what I see by leaking documents, I need to somehow get the corresponding RNC documents or else I'm a spy? This viewpoint makes no sense. Maybe you're calling Wikileaks the whistleblower, but they really can't be considered one.
- vntok 4y ago
  > What? So if I'm an employee of the DNC, and I want to blow the whistle on what I see by leaking documents, I need to somehow get the corresponding RNC documents or else I'm a spy? No, that's not what the parent is saying. If (1) you have acquired documents on both the DNC and the RNC, (2) they are both damaging and (3) you choose to only leak the ones about the DNC... well then it's not as clear cut and ethical as leaking both troves.
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    It's their use of "whistleblower" that seems wrong. If a whistleblower was behind the DNC leaks, there's no way they had RNC documents.
dijit 4y ago
1) I said that there's not much dirty laundry on Trump to leak and I explained why. 2) Even if there was, it doesn't mean you need to wait for leaks from both sides of a political spectrum to report on them 3) Even if point 2 was true: how would you reconcile one side having more leaks than the other side, or if one is unverified or hard to verify? 4) Even if you could reconcile point 3 somehow: people will still call you biased because the nature of the leaks might not be symmetrical. How would you operate in such a world. FWIW I have no real dog in that fight, I am not on one of the US sides, I'm mostly worried about my own politics in the UK and I'm worried that our journalism is not functioning properly, and part of the reason is because the UK is following tact of the US and poisoning public opinion and treating journalists as inhuman meat to be derided publicly and discarded when public support wanes enough.
loup-vaillant 4y ago
Wikileaks aren't whistleblowers, they're journalists. Even if they did take a side there (which is unclear to me), journalists take sides all the time.

by mrtksn 4y ago

boomboomsubban 4y ago

>The major issue is that if a whistleblower takes side, its no longer whistleblowing but espionage What? So if I'm an employee of the DNC, and I want to blow the whistle on what I see by leaking documents, I need to somehow get the corresponding RNC documents or else I'm a spy? This viewpoint makes no sense. Maybe you're calling Wikileaks the whistleblower, but they really can't be considered one.

vntok 4y ago
> What? So if I'm an employee of the DNC, and I want to blow the whistle on what I see by leaking documents, I need to somehow get the corresponding RNC documents or else I'm a spy? No, that's not what the parent is saying. If (1) you have acquired documents on both the DNC and the RNC, (2) they are both damaging and (3) you choose to only leak the ones about the DNC... well then it's not as clear cut and ethical as leaking both troves.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  It's their use of "whistleblower" that seems wrong. If a whistleblower was behind the DNC leaks, there's no way they had RNC documents.

dijit 4y ago

1) I said that there's not much dirty laundry on Trump to leak and I explained why. 2) Even if there was, it doesn't mean you need to wait for leaks from both sides of a political spectrum to report on them 3) Even if point 2 was true: how would you reconcile one side having more leaks than the other side, or if one is unverified or hard to verify? 4) Even if you could reconcile point 3 somehow: people will still call you biased because the nature of the leaks might not be symmetrical. How would you operate in such a world. FWIW I have no real dog in that fight, I am not on one of the US sides, I'm mostly worried about my own politics in the UK and I'm worried that our journalism is not functioning properly, and part of the reason is because the UK is following tact of the US and poisoning public opinion and treating journalists as inhuman meat to be derided publicly and discarded when public support wanes enough.

loup-vaillant 4y ago

Wikileaks aren't whistleblowers, they're journalists. Even if they did take a side there (which is unclear to me), journalists take sides all the time.