|
|
|
|
|
by FilterSweep
3162 days ago
|
|
There are far too many assumptions in this comment, particularly in the second paragraph, to even begin to unpack. Your entire Parent post is centered around a false equivalency between MSM outlets and Wikileaks. Here's a similar assumption I'll throw your way: Parent personally slighted you and/or your belief system, and caused you to react this aggressively to my comment. If I were to employ the same non-sequitur logic
you used about myself further, I would reckon you are a shill. |
|
I'm just asking why you think this and in particular why our hypothetical leaker would not simply contact another organization for publication if Wikileaks failed to do so? Many of the biggest leaks in recent times have not come from Wikileaks. The Panama Papers were published by Süddeutsche Zeitung. Snowden's NSA and global surveillance leaks were brought to the public attention through contact with Glenn Greenwald.
I'd actually even take this a step further. Wikileaks is under an implicit, but mandatory, obligation to publish such materials if they were given them. Imagine our leaker did simply take the materials to e.g. Glenn Greenwald and published our hypothetical groundbreaking leaks. A condition of said leaks could also be publication of the fact that they were provided to Wikileaks who chose to not publish them. That would, overnight, destroy Wikileaks as an organization.