[dijit]

Ugh, don't make me do this:

Selectively releasing documents is not the same as releasing something later proven to be false, which is what the GP asserted.

FWIW you could play devils advocate here and say that wikileaks could not independently verify the omitted things; but I'm not going to go there because it's conjecture. Just as your suggestion that it's collusion with Russia, however likely, is also conjecture.

[fsloth]

Selectively releasing everyone else's dirt except for Russia is a strong indicator of non-neutral stance.

[dijit]

Sorry I must have missed where anyone in this thread-chain has asserted that statement at all.

[uep]

Lies of omission are still lies.

To use an extreme example, if a reporting organization writes a story about one nation launching missile strikes against another, and leaves out that they were retaliatory strikes from a previous attack, that dramatically changes the perception of those events. If this sort of thing is continually done to benefit one entity, it is reasonable to question the honesty of the reporter.

Even if the released documents are all accurate, the previous lies of omission would cause a reasonable person to question whether or not the released documents provide adequate context.

[belorn]

This is the primary reason why every time I read a news article that seems to have a bit "too perfect" narrative about who is good and who is bad, I go and check Wikipedia or other news sites. It usually result in a broader context. Few things tend to be black or white, and never in any political topics.

Out of all news I read there is maybe one small set of investigative journalist that I trust to give me a balanced amount of context to from my own opinion, and as a mark of quality, they are disliked by the government, activists, the left and the right.

[dx87]

There's this from the top level comment.

> Stand up for journalists. Real journalists.

I wouldn't think that "Real journalists" would selectively choose what to report based on who their friends are.

[dijit]

I want to downvote this for having loaded controversial commentary, but I can't as it's a direct reply.

"who their friends are" is an uncharitable interpretation of the situation. You might not like that they didn't report on some information that was Russian, but to assume it's due to friendly relations and not fear of reprisal is spinning a narrative. Just as asserting the exact inverse is also spinning a narrative.

I don't claim to know everything and people seem really emotive about this so it's common to see people finding things that please their current mindset and presenting it as if its evidence of whatever they believe.

Please attempt removing your emotions and coldly look at the facts, try to consider an alternative theory for what happened or is happening, especially if you're American because Americans seem to be _especially_ heated when it comes to Assange.

Whatever your beliefs on the subject, a lot more has happened due to wikileaks stories; over something like NYT or bloomberg stories, which are highly regarded news outlets. So a charitable interpretation is that they're doing "real journalism" because they're digging in to things in the public interest.

[FireBeyond]

> not fear of reprisal is spinning a narrative

I don't simultaneously fear reprisal _while_ reaching out to Russians for help and assistance.

I don't simultaneously fear reprisal _while_ reaching out to the Trump campaign to coordinate the release of leaks.

I don't simultaneously fear reprisal from a country _while_ seeking asylum in that country.

"fear of reprisal" would be the first time I've heard _that_ particular narrative being spun.

[somerainbows]

>I wouldn't think that "Real journalists" would selectively choose what to report based on who their friends are.

Then who is a "real" journalist anymore these days? That's is exactly why so many people are abandoning mainstream media (CNN, Foxnews, NBC, BBC, Guardian, Al Jazeera), because those established entities time and time again choose to selectively report on events when it fit their political bias and omit when it isn't possible to put a spin on the story.

[thatlongthrow1]

WikiLeaks Turned Down Leaks on Russian Government During U.S. Presidential Campaign

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l...

>In the summer of 2016, as WikiLeaks was publishing documents from Democratic operatives allegedly obtained by Kremlin-directed hackers, Julian Assange turned down a large cache of documents related to the Russian government, according to chat messages and a source who provided the records.

>WikiLeaks declined to publish a wide-ranging trove of documents — at least 68 gigabytes of data — that came from inside the Russian Interior Ministry, according to partial chat logs reviewed by Foreign Policy.

>The logs, which were provided to FP, only included WikiLeaks’s side of the conversation.

>“As far as we recall these are already public,” WikiLeaks wrote at the time.

>“WikiLeaks rejects all submissions that it cannot verify. WikiLeaks rejects submissions that have already been published elsewhere or which are likely to be considered insignificant. WikiLeaks has never rejected a submission due to its country of origin,” the organization wrote in a Twitter direct message when contacted by FP about the Russian cache.

Assange would later go on to propagate and distribute manipulated leaks sent by Guccifer 2.0 and other known Russian fronts like the "CyberBerkut" promotion of his I linked at the thread top.

[fwklein]

WikiLeaks published hundreds of thousands documents about Russia[0][1] and there's no evidence for your quoted claim made by ForeignPolicy. Where are those chatlogs?

For matters about Assange you should definitely look for more independent sources than only FP. A lot has happened since 2016/17, and there's been cases which show that certain groups within the US establishment been wrong for alleging Assange of a Russia connection[2].

[0] https://search.wikileaks.org/?q=Russia

[1] https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/

[2] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/07/31/assa-j31.html

[belorn]

In 2016 the relationship between Julian Assange and the US is about as hostile as possible. He was seeking asylum against this very extradition process that is ongoing. A big part of that drama was also that the US secretary of state under the previous years, ie the U.S. government's minister of foreign affairs, was a candidate for the 2016 presidential campaign and thus is it likely that there is a personal grudge between Assange and her.

And he was given documents that could hurt her. He used them.

It seems pretty clear that neutrality has not been on the tables for Assange ever since he sought political asylum. As pointed out above, this does not mean he has fabricated documents, or knowingly distributed fabricated documents, but since 2012 he has been in an active conflict against the government of the USA and in particular the foreign affairs side of it and thus leaks should be seen in that context.

[fsloth]

"since 2012 he has been in an active conflict against the government of the USA and in particular the foreign affairs side of it and thus leaks should be seen in that context."

Thanks, I think this the lense that should be used when viewing all the facts. It's very hard to view Assange as impartial, but it's too soon to tell if he's anyones agent but his own.

[koheripbal]

Hillary literally asked whether Assange could be killed in a State Department meeting.

I think there's no doubt that there was a personal grudge between the two.

[wyck]

What most people seem to fail to realize is that in of itself is not necessary proof of collusion. There is the "street" theory that publishing records on powerful Russians ends with a bullet in your head( or worse) and not jail or any legal proceedings. Something to think about.

[fsloth]

Well, yes, getting to Russia's shit list is a nasty experience even for non-Russians, as well known examples show, such as that of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessikka_Aro

[stx]

Is it really necessary to leak information on Russia? Outside Russia we already know that they have done bad things. Besides was the information he leaked untrue? As an US citizen I am most interested in when is going on inside my own country not only because it affects me but also because I have the ability to push for change.

[thatlongthrow1]

Assange asking Guccifer 2.0 for Hillary leaks: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dt6BBwBXcAEL-Fj?format=jpg&name=...

Assange helping Guccifer 2.0 distribute manipulated Hillary leaks: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/764256561539735552

How the leaks were taken from other sources and manipulated: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qkjevd/guccifer-2-is-bull...

>Guccifer 2.0 — believed to be a misinformation campaign operated by Russian intelligence — posted an 860-megabyte file on Tuesday afternoon that he claimed was donor information he hacked from Clinton Foundation servers.

>A sampling of the posted documents include a spreadsheet of big bank donations, a list of primarily California donors, an outdated spreadsheet of some Republican House members — and a screenshot of files he claimed to have obtained, one of which was titled “Pay to Play.”

>But there are a number of red flags that suggest the documents are in fact from a previous hack on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), not a new hack on the Clinton Foundation.

>A spot check of some of the people on the donor list against FEC filings found that they all lined up with DCCC contributions.

[koheripbal]

This does not alter the claim that info released by Wikileaks was never fake.

[DaniloDias]

It is not worth engaging. I have met powerful people who have an unreasonable bug up their ass about Assange.

These are Americans who state that this Australian is a traitor who should be prosecuted and executed for treason over the collateral murder video. It is the same exact moral and ethical rot that has corrupted our police forces.

Edit: These downvotes are enlightening.