[midniteslayr]

A credible news organization would have tons of fact checkers and editors to make sure the relevant facts made it in to any article they wrote. They wouldn't, blindly, release tons of unedited emails, including some that were doctored to make the DNC and the Clinton Campaign look bad.

Doesn't need to be state-sponsored (and most news organization aren't "state-sponsored" ... unlike RT, for example) to be credible.

[gbumakefan]

Since when does the constitution require journalists publish information in a manner agreeable to you? Hell, there was a court case years ago that decided news can knowingly publish falsehoods.

[CamperBob2]

Which emails were doctored? I hadn't heard about that. My understanding is that the "doctoring" done by Wikileaks consisted of selectively releasing information obtained from Democratic sources while concealing similar information related to the Republican side ( https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican... ).

If true, that's the point at which Assange and Wikileaks departed from the path of legitimate journalism.

[midniteslayr]

The Russians doctored the email, for example: https://www.businessinsider.com/guccifer-2-0-dnc-document-ru...

They did it to make it seem that the Clinton Campaign and the DNC had something nefarious going on

[monocasa]

That had nothing to do with Assange or WikiLeaks.