[lsadam0]

You honestly believe that? There's a pattern in the past year of Wikileaks only exposing one side.

[neuralk]

Funny how people seem to care more about who was targeted or how they got the leaks, rather than the content of the leaks themselves.

You'd think evidence of corruption would be relevant and worthy of mass coverage, no matter who committed it or how it was obtained.

[lsadam0]

I have no doubt that Clinton was corrupt, but I think Trump is outright dangerous and a huge step backwards for the US. I'll take Clinton's status quo corruption, thank you very much.

Besides, your entire point rests upon the incorrect assumption that the other side isn't corrupt.

[neuralk]

>your entire point rests upon the incorrect assumption that the other side isn't corrupt.

no it doesn't. Anyone's corruption should be exposed for the betterment of society.

Rather, it is your argument that solely depends on the belief that others ("the other side") MUST be guilty. I understand emotions run high to match the stakes since it was the presidential election after all, but you'll note I didn't make any value judgments either way. Just because we are convinced one party is guilty doesn't mean we should ignore evidence of another's corruption out of fairness.

[enraged_camel]

>>You'd think evidence of corruption would be relevant and worthy of mass coverage, no matter who committed it or how it was obtained.

Our justice system cares a lot about how evidence used in a trial was obtained. If it was obtained illegally, it is often thrown out.

There is a good reason for this. I'm sure you can figure it out if you think about it. Here is a good start for some reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule

[neuralk]

Thanks for the condescension, but really we weren't talking about the justice system.

[rosalinekarr]

[WikiLeaks has stated repeatedly that they publish everything they receive.][1] Blaming them for failing to release information from the other side assumes that they have that information to release.

[1]: https://theintercept.com/2017/04/19/intercepted-podcast-juli...

[lsadam0]

Everything? "We do have some information about the republican campaign". http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/29345...

[nailer]

Parent said they publish everything they receive. They didn't receive Republican emails.

[joshgel]

And, if some bad actor, say the Russians, are giving them all their info, and they are publishing "everything they receive", does that make them neutral? Or a willing pawn?

[rosalinekarr]

If they withheld the information that they received in the interest of neutrality, would that be better?

[seattle_spring]

and Fox News says they're "fair and balanced."

Infowars says they are, "just asking the questions."

Breitbart says they are, "the last bastion of free speech."

None of the above 3 statements are true, and neither is Wikileaks statement.