Julian Assange arrested at the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

That is a good point, I guess I never looked at it that way. My point was more that, IMO journalism usually entails some sort of editorializing or attempting to explain the content. There is very very little of that with Wikileaks. They may post a blurb as to what they are leaking, but there is very little editorial. I suppose that is the point.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

During the election, when Trump was preaching "drain the swamp," of course he loved Wikileaks! It was an ally! Today, with the actual draining getting close and swamp critters trying everything to attack him and anyone associated with him, of course he doesn't want to say he loves Wikileaks... that would make them and Assange a target for the swamp, during the one time when Assange is most vulnerable.

Trump makes one comment about Wikileaks in reference to Hillary's emails during a political rally and people assume he knows about Wikileaks, and he might have only heard it for the first time when Hillary's emails were released. I would bet he know very little even today...

originally posted by: RexKramerPRT
a reply to: CriticalStinker

But if Assange conspired to commit a crime in the pursuit of journalism is that legitimate?

Depends what the means are. If he actively tried to hack US government computers, that's a crime... But I don't think that's what happened.

I'll link you to an article that I think paints the best picture about this story (Assange). The reason I believe that is one of the article's authors is Glenn Greenwald.

Quick preface, Glenn used to be a lawyer before he got into journalism. He and Jeremy Scahill were the two journalists Snowden trusted to do his story. Glenn and Jeremy founded the outlet "The Intercept", where this next article is.

The Intercept- Glenn Greenwald and Micah Lee.

I implore you to give it a read.

a reply to: Xtrozero

He had high praise for WK. Maybe it was just more BS from Trump though.

originally posted by: PokeyJoe
a reply to: CriticalStinker

That is a good point, I guess I never looked at it that way. My point was more that, IMO journalism usually entails some sort of editorializing or attempting to explain the content. There is very very little of that with Wikileaks. They may post a blurb as to what they are leaking, but there is very little editorial. I suppose that is the point.

Their editorial process just isn't visible in the content or product.

They take a different approach. Their team scourers the content to make sure A. It's valid and B. People won't be in danger aside from legal ramifications.

Are they perfect? Absolutely not. But they are the closest thing we've got to unadulterated facts (aside from the argument they may be holding back facts that they don't like, which is a topic in honesty, but we don't know).

Like with many things that are good, I hope Wikileaks encourages a competitive environment where someone even better emerges. But as it stands, their model of just presenting the documents and letting us decide is pretty damn good.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

Isn't that what true journalism is? Compiling facts no matter the source?

So you are saying that if I break into a computer and steal information then just release it I'm now a journalist?

originally posted by: roadgravel

He had high praise for WK. Maybe it was just more BS from Trump though.

He could of cared less about it until Hillary's emails were released. Hell I would be happy too, wouldn't you?

originally posted by: PokeyJoe

originally posted by: JimTSpock
If Assange was smart he would have set up in a country with no US extradition. And no extradition to countries where wikileaks may be breaking the law. He's not smart he's dumb. And that's why he was hiding in the silly embassy for years and appears to have no plan or clue what he's doing that's my 2c.

Julian Assange is many things, but dumb is not one of them.

That's your opinion. IMO he has played a dumb game and has lost and is in jail, when he could've been a lot smarter. He is way out of his depth.
Like many people he is smart at some things and dumb at other things.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

Isn't that what true journalism is? Compiling facts no matter the source?

So you are saying that if I break into a computer and steal information then just release it I'm now a journalist?

No.

Have you looked into the action he did they're trying to frame is him "assisting" in breaching a computer?

From my understanding, Manning had the access, and Assange tried to help Manning cover his tracks. That's a journalist protecting their source. That's no different than a journalist telling someone to use a secure drop box, an airgapped computer, ect.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: PokeyJoe
a reply to: CriticalStinker

That is a good point, I guess I never looked at it that way. My point was more that, IMO journalism usually entails some sort of editorializing or attempting to explain the content. There is very very little of that with Wikileaks. They may post a blurb as to what they are leaking, but there is very little editorial. I suppose that is the point.

Their editorial process just isn't visible in the content or product.

They take a different approach. Their team scourers the content to make sure A. It's valid and B. People won't be in danger aside from legal ramifications.

Are they perfect? Absolutely not. But they are the closest thing we've got to unadulterated facts (aside from the argument they may be holding back facts that they don't like, which is a topic in honesty, but we don't know).

Like with many things that are good, I hope Wikileaks encourages a competitive environment where someone even better emerges. But as it stands, their model of just presenting the documents and letting us decide is pretty damn good.

What facts they put out and what facts they don't can take one down the path of driving a narrative. They take something like bad combat engagements, what happens in war, and release them and that pushes a certain narrative all by itself. We also see things one sided and that can easily create out of contexts scenarios.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: PokeyJoe
a reply to: CriticalStinker

That is a good point, I guess I never looked at it that way. My point was more that, IMO journalism usually entails some sort of editorializing or attempting to explain the content. There is very very little of that with Wikileaks. They may post a blurb as to what they are leaking, but there is very little editorial. I suppose that is the point.

Their editorial process just isn't visible in the content or product.

They take a different approach. Their team scourers the content to make sure A. It's valid and B. People won't be in danger aside from legal ramifications.

Are they perfect? Absolutely not. But they are the closest thing we've got to unadulterated facts (aside from the argument they may be holding back facts that they don't like, which is a topic in honesty, but we don't know).

Like with many things that are good, I hope Wikileaks encourages a competitive environment where someone even better emerges. But as it stands, their model of just presenting the documents and letting us decide is pretty damn good.

What facts they put out and what facts they don't can take one down the path of driving a narrative. They take something like bad combat engagements, what happens in war, and release them and that pushes a certain narrative all by itself. We also see things one sided and that can easily create out of contexts scenarios.

And I think I've been honest about that.

Is it so much different than MSM using anonymous sources that time and time again prove to be utter BS?, on top of that they interject it with opinion... Wait, no, it's mostly opinion with a couple of quotes from the BS artists.

One's more dangerous than the other IMO.

I've been more than vocal about the possibility there may be things we don't know about WL. But as far as what they released about combat engagements, do we not have the right to know? You think the talking heads on CNN, Fox, MSNBC ect are going out there and trying to get information? Or are they doing broadcasts from their balcony of a 5 star hotel then going to the bar downstairs? Edit: Granted Wikileaks aren't going out there, but they provide a platform for people to tell the truth as oppose to the government talking points fed to MSM who will just peddle it hook line and sinker without verifying it.

a reply to: Xtrozero

So you are saying that if I break into a computer and steal information then just release it I'm now a journalist?

There are many examples of media publishing classified information in the past. Thats journalism. It is unfortunate that this journalistic medium which has one many prizes in the past published information that fell outside the control of the deep state. In reality this is what the crime is.

You are in principle defending a state controlled media. Be very careful what you wish for.

Editorializing is editorializing.
Editorializing is not journalism. Opinions are not journalism.
Journalism is the presentation of facts without interpreting these facts.
People today who claim to be journalists have no idea how to present facts without editorializing.

a reply to: PokeyJoe

That is a good point, I guess I never looked at it that way. My point was more that, IMO journalism usually entails some sort of editorializing or attempting to explain the content. There is very very little of that with Wikileaks. They may post a blurb as to what they are leaking, but there is very little editorial. I suppose that is the point.

Yes it is the point they post obectivable verifiable fact. A first for media. A standard has been set.

Going to leave this here. please don't expect a debate/discussion from me about this, I'm just lurking and adding a different perspective.



Have a great weekend everyone.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
Editorializing is editorializing.
Editorializing is not journalism. Opinions are not journalism.
Journalism is the presentation of facts without interpreting these facts.
People today who claim to be journalists have no idea how to present facts without editorializing.

They do not present facts. They present fake news. The real journalists are silence, smeared or removed. Hence the reaction we have just seen with WL.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker


From my understanding, Manning had the access, and Assange tried to help Manning cover his tracks. That's a journalist protecting their source. That's no different than a journalist telling someone to use a secure drop box, an airgapped computer, ect.

They are saying it goes deeper than that as in they mentored Manning in how to gain more access than what he was privileged to. Manning was pretty low rank, so I don't think he had the access needed for what he did. The bottom line is secret information was stolen and anyone in that chain of events is guilty of that crime.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The bottom line is secret information was stolen and anyone in that chain of events is guilty of that crime.

So should we go after Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill for releasing the Snowden story?

a reply to: uncommitted

so much idiocy. To be a 'patriot'? Why are you Americans calling Assange (Australian) a 'patriot'? Do you even have a clue what the word is defined as? If he was a 'patriot' he would be stealing sensitive information about the political side of Australian politics he doesn't like and publishing that, but he didn't.

because he defends free speech and truth. Is that not an American value.

a reply to: Xtrozero

They are saying it goes deeper than that as in they mentored Manning in how to gain more access than what he was privileged to. Manning was pretty low rank, so I don't think he had the access needed for what he did. The bottom line is secret information was stolen and anyone in that chain of events is guilty of that crime.

Is this just American secret information or do you think all countries should not be allowed to publish classified information from another country.