WikiLeaks
From iGeek
I respect WikiLeaks, but am not realy a fan. They've done a service, and gotten people killed.
~ Aristotle Sabouni
Created: 2019-04-13 |
| 🗒️ Note: |
|---|
| China/Russia/Saudi Arabia/and so on, are more closed, have more tolerance towards oppression of speech, a more cliquish culture, and people know that leaking there means their death (or ruination). Whereas the west it's a gamble towards attention, book deals and possible fortune or at least being provided for (Chelsea Manning, Eric Snowden). This means that Wikileaks and institutions like them will always do more harm to open countries (and their interests) than more closed ones, that behave worse and need this kind of thing the most. |
How does that balance out? I don't know -- which is why I don't really like them. I definitely think some of what they did was good, and some was very bad (and misleading and will be used by our enemies). So that's a price I'm willing to pay, begrudgingly. They're like a NYT, WaPo or other institution, if those others had more credibility and objectivity, and were more honest. We KNOW Wikileaks will publish anything that hurts either side: Democrats and Republicans. (We also know that the American leftist media has gotten caught suppressing stories that didn't fit their leftist agenda). Wikileaks would also publish stuff that makes the U.S. or any other country look bad. Their agenda is open and honest. They are what they are, and don't pretend to be something they're not: like CNN, NYT, WaPo or even FoxNews on the other side. So I respect that.
More[edit | edit source]
- 2016.10.17 Illegal to read Wikileaks - CNN's Chris Cuomo moronically says it's illegal for the public to look at Wikileaks, but it's different for the media (so trust them to filter for you). Both are wrong. Even left of center WaPo had to admit that was FakeNews. In the name of journalistic standards, he was never fired, nor issued a correction, retraction or apology. I'm embarassed for both of them.
- 2016.12.09 Sophisticated Russians Hack - WaPo claims that a sophisticated attack by Russians to hack the election happened: security experts laugh it off as both amateur hour of an attack (off-the-shelf and out-of-date root-kit with a spear-phishing campaign), fuzzy ties to Russians, no hacking of the actual election (only leaking the truth via DNC emails: aka investigative journalism), and no evidence that they were the source for Wikileaks.
- 2017.05.10 anti-Wikileaks - WikiLeaks has 100% perfect record of authentic and accurately-vetted releases, so NPR and MSNBC tried to trash for their better record by pointing to non-Wikileaks content, and pointing out that since some of it isn't valid, then you shouldn't trust Wikileaks. That's like claiming you shoudn't trust NPR and MSNBC because some of their guests lie.
- 2017.05.17 Seth Rich - There was a lot of news around Seth Rich (murdered) of being the source of the WikiLeaks emails, including inferences from Julian Assange himself. Because it didn't fit WaPo's narrative, they were mum on the whole topic. The reports at the time are likely bullshit (and have since been altered or purged), but there was more evidence for it at the time than there was for most stories WaPo was running that was blaming it on "the Russians". Even if you only report something to refute it, suppressing things you don't like is called FakeNews.
- 2017.12.08 Trump Jr. (Wikileaks) - CNN (Manu Raju) had a "bombshell" report that Donald Trump Jr. had early, secret early access to hacked DNC emails from WikiLeaks, 9 days before they were public. It turned out wrong: he only had access to the info the day after Wikileaks went public and no special access had been given. CNN eventually quietly revised their story, but never apologized or admitted how they got the dates wrong.
- Assange Irony - Chelsea Manning steals government secrets and is the pardoned hero of the left. Assange must be ruined for publishing it. Why? Manning is a transexual that undermined national security and cost lives. Assange published truths (leaks) that made the Democrats/Hillary look bad. (Actually, their actions and own words made them look bad, but close enough).
- Hillary Clinton/Open Borders - Wikileaks leaked the text of private, paid speech to a Brazilian bank where Clinton said: “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders..." 3 years later, Politifact, FactCheck and CNN were claiming that Hillary never said or meant it, despite evidence to the contrary.
- Hillary Clinton: 2nd Amendment - Hillary dedicated her life to trying to take other people's freedoms and property (taxes). Guns are no different.
- Hillary Clinton: Emailgate/Servergate (2009-) - After criticizing Bush and Secretary State Colin Powell for using a public email service for campaign emails while in office, Hillary ignored the law, setup a private server, had it full of classified information, then deleted 30,000 emails and destroyed hardware that was under Subpeona. Apologists, hypocrites and fools persist in implying she did nothing wrong
- Obama: HiroshimaGate - Obama ignored the advice of Japan's Foreign Minister Mitoji Yabunaka which said that such an apology, "would undermine the defensive alliance between Japan and the U.S." So Obama ignored the advice of Japan on Japan, and apologized for Hiroshima (and WWII), and actually did more to open up old wounds than to close them -- and it made us look weak in the region.
- Russian Hackers: The Evidence - The media had a record of disinformation, false information or lies about Trump. This didn't change with "Russian Hackers". The evidence released that Russian Hackers stole Podesta's email and gave it to WikiLeaks was sketchy at best. That doesn't mean it did or did not. It means that you're a rube if you believe it without question, or think the evidence was conclusive.
🔗 More
| |
| |
| |
🔗 Links
Tags: Organizations Media TBD
