[boomboomsubban]

Yes, they are a news organization. Covering the election is what a news organization should do, and it's hard to argue the Clinton emails weren't newsworthy.

>They have been to be a known tool for the Russian government, even going as far as creating a show for Julian Assange on the state-backed RT TV Network

This is untrue. There is nothing suggesting that Wikileaks has knowingly coordinated with Russia. And that TV show was indepently produced by Assange, with RT buying some ofthe distribution rights.

[midniteslayr]

If they are a news organization, they do a terrible job of reporting the news. They are a black box repository for leaked data. They were once a great resource for info hackers and leakers to push their data, like back in 2008/2009. But that was before news organizations started using their own secure drop servers for sources. Once WikiLeaks sources started to not go to them, they started to look for other benefactors and sources. They found it in the Russian Government.

[boomboomsubban]

Again, nothing suggesting they are knowingly working with the Russians.

Wikileaks quality has surely dropped. They are still the press, and any prosecution by the US will be over things like the Manning links, a direct attack on the freedom of the press.

[foldr]

>Again, nothing suggesting they are knowingly working with the Russians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tomorrow

[boomboomsubban]

OK, there is evidence that Assange sold the broadcast rights of a show to a Russian controlled news organization. Do you think that Jesse Ventura should also be prosecuted?

[foldr]

I don't think Assange should be prosecuted for appearing on Russian state TV. (Does anyone?)

While it may be technically true to say that he "sold the rights" to Russia Today, that's arguably a little misleading, as the show first aired on RT, and RT had exclusive initial rights to it.

[boomboomsubban]

>I don't think Assange should be prosecuted for appearing on Russian state TV. (Does anyone?

People use his television show to claim he's a paid operative of Russia. The same narrative can be made of Ventura, and any reason Assange should be prosecuted but not Ventura seems sketchy.

>While it may be technically true to say that he "sold the rights" to Russia Today, that's arguably a little misleading, as the show first aired on RT, and RT had exclusive initial rights to it.

They bought the initial rights in several languages, not exclusive, but he did not make the show for RT. That's a fairly clear distinction.

[monocasa]

Was Ellsberg a terrible reporter since he managed to get the entirety of the Pentagon Papers (~4k pages) publicly released?

[Heyokamerican]

He wasn't a reporter at all; he leaked the Pentagon Papers to the NY Times (among others) which then published articles and excerpts.

[throwaway2048]

News organizations are under no (legal) obligation to not be biased. Bias does not make wikileaks not a news organization.

[stale2002]

> They are a black box repository for leaked data

Or said another way, they act as a news organization.

Modern day news organizations unfortunately have zero integrity and are unwilling to take on the people with power.

[krapp]

Wikileaks didn't cover the election. Wikileaks released private emails with the intent of damaging one specific candidate.

>and it's hard to argue the Clinton emails weren't newsworthy.

That the emails were released was newsworthy, but I would argue that nothing in the emails themselves was particularly newsworthy.

[boomboomsubban]

The emails were newsworthy, disliking what you consider their ulterior motive doesn't change that.

[krapp]

What emails, specifically, were newsworthy?

[monocasa]

The ones that caused the DNC chair to step down, showing that the DNC had subverted it's own internal processes regarding impartiality during the primary process.

[throwawaythekey]

How about the ones that show the HC camp intended to actively support trump because they thought he would be the easiest candidate to beat?

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clin...

[nailer]

The ones where it was revealed the Clinton campaign was running the DNC and Sanders never stood a chance. Whether your support that or not I don't think anyone disputes that this was revealed by Wikileaks

[hackinthebochs]

Plenty of people dispute this narrative, myself included. The DNC never took any action against the Sanders campaign, despite some disgruntled emails by some DNC staffers venting about Sanders.

[AnaniasAnanas]

I don't really know about that, there are many accounts such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf5ZkGKk9SM that claim otherwise, though I do not know how reliable these are.

[monocasa]

DWS just stepped down for nothing.

And Donna Brazile's just a liar I guess.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-b...

[munk-a]

I don't believe they are a news organization, but they are something very similar that should be protected with the same freedoms. Their contributions during 2016 were highly biased but they released information that wasn't false, while it isn't wrong to call them partisan they still provided a valuable service.

If they had received the emails, discovered they were forged and then released them anyways, then I think there'd be a different story. News outlets need to provide true information, they can be opinionated if they are open about it but blatantly lying (i.e. National Enquirer) is the only thing I think is objectionable.

[shostack]

> "This is untrue. There is nothing suggesting that Wikileaks has knowingly coordinated with Russia."

Really? Nothing at all? Big fat nothingburger?

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-the-latest-mue...

[boomboomsubban]

An indictment is not proof for a start, this is a fundamental part of the US justice system.

That indictment does not actually mention Wikileaks at all, let alone suggest that Wikileaks knew the source was the Russian government.

[kjksf]

Can we agree that an indictment is much more than "nothing" and indicate a strong belief on the part of prosecution that they have a winnable case?

Your reading of the indictment (https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2018/07/Mueller...) is severely lacking.

It specifically mentions that 12 russians conspired "with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury" to "stage releases of the stolen documents to interfere with the 2016 US election".

You don't have to be a genius to infer that one of those "persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury" is Assange.

[boomboomsubban]

>Can we agree that an indictment is much more than "nothing" and indicate a strong belief on the part of prosecution that they have a winnable case?

Sure. Wikileaks still is not mentioned as the prosecution does not feel they have a winnable case against the organization, and these indictments do not show Wikileaks knowingly coordinated with Russia.

[elliekelly]

>That indictment does not actually mention Wikileaks at all

If you read the indictment it's pretty clear that "Organization 1" is Wikileaks.

[boomboomsubban]

If they are "Organization 1," which yeah they almost certainly are, they are called that as they are not even being accused of a crime. Everything in the indictments could be true and you still haven't shown that Wikileaks knowingly coordinated with the Russia.

[mejari]

You did not say "there is no absolute proof', you said "There is nothing suggesting". This very much suggests.

[boomboomsubban]

Where is the suggestion that Wikileaks knew what the source was and coordinated anyway? The indictments suggests that the source was Russian, nothing points to knowing coordination.

[tdcbfdct3]

I know that's Assange's line, but that's basically just how all TV is made. Nobody would claim Saturday Night Live isn't an NBC show because it's actually produced by Broadway Video.

RT's logo has a producer's credit in his show's credits. It's an RT show.

Wikileaks isn't a news organization. They don't do reporting. They are a publisher, which still has first amendment protections.

[jsutton]

Covering news is much different than exposing the private communications of a political party.

[boomboomsubban]

No, it is not. It may have been preffered if some of the less relevant emails were not shared, it's also unclear who should make the call of what is "relevant" and either way their release was news.