Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by fanatic2pope 2117 days ago
> “Hey Don. We have an unusual idea,” WikiLeaks wrote on October 21, 2016. “Leak us one or more of your father’s tax returns.” WikiLeaks then laid out three reasons why this would benefit both the Trumps and WikiLeaks. One, The New York Times had already published a fragment of Trump’s tax returns on October 1; two, the rest could come out any time “through the most biased source (e.g. NYT/MSNBC).”

> It is the third reason, though, WikiLeaks wrote, that “is the real kicker.” “If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality,” WikiLeaks explained. “That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source.” It then provided an email address and link where the Trump campaign could send the tax returns, and adds, “The same for any other negative stuff (documents, recordings) that you think has a decent chance of coming out. Let us put it out.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-sec...
1 comments
hallihax 2117 days ago
This is called 'cultivating sources', not 'collusion'. In any case, the conversations led to nothing. WL wanted info and data - which is their trade, and to boost the reach and impact of their publications; again, completely normal.

What's the problem, exactly?

link
fanatic2pope 2117 days ago
If you don't see a problem with wikileaks specifically looking for a curated "leak" to help Trump's campaign and their own appearance of "impartiality", there's not much else to say here.
link
hallihax 2117 days ago
I don't see any problem whatsoever with a journalistic organisation approaching potential sources, no. How else do you imagine this works?
link
fanatic2pope 2116 days ago
LOL. Spin spin spin, and downvote dissenting opinions. You guys are transparent.
link
hallihax 2116 days ago
I haven't downvoted you - and there's no spin.

Just because people with vested interests in destroying journalism keep saying that journalists talking with your political opponents is some sign of underhanded activity, it doesn't make it true.

link