[shard972]

> But to me at least, the big problem is that Assange lost all credibility as a journalist over the Wikileaks handling of the 2016 election and related hackings (eg the DCC emails). You'll have a hard time arguing that Assange (and Wikileaks by extension) wasn't picking a side here and doing what they can to influence the outcome of the election.

How is this any different than most mainstream journalists?

[educationdata]

No. Mainstream journalists never pick a side or intend to influence the outcome of the election. At least not pick the wrong side.

[ColanR]

Of course they don't. [1] And no one ever tries to hide the fact such things happened, either. [2]

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/07/do...

[2] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-received-debate-qu...

[onlydeadheroes]

Please take your snopes trash elsewhere.

"If an organization like Snopes feels it is ok to hire partisan employees who have run for public office on behalf of a particular political party and employ them as fact checkers where they have a high likelihood of being asked to weigh in on material aligned with or contrary to their views, how can they reasonably be expected to act as neutral arbitrators of the truth?"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-dai...

[ColanR]

I think you misread me...I was trying to make my sarcasm obvious. Did you notice that the snopes article was directly contradicted by the washington post article?

I'm going to hold onto that link you sent. I've been wanting some good data on why snopes is unreliable. I've seen people rely on it far too readily.