Where to get your news

[deedsker]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

I don't understand how Wikileaks is at all similar to trolls. Has anything Wikileaks has published turned out to be fake or untrue? Ever?

 

If you want to say Wikileaks slants their leaks or selectively leaks their information, that's debatable but in no way the same as trolls saying things that aren't true.

Link

 

Sometimes they mix in fake documents with true to give validity to fake information they want to make someone look bad.

[knapplc]

WikiLeaks' slant isn't debatable. They have become a Putin propaganda tool. There has to be tons and tons of incriminating evidence out there about Trump, but they never publish it. If that isn't slanted, what do you call it?

[TGHusker]

On 10/29/2017 at 4:43 PM, zoogs said:

What's going on with the WSJ? They've been pretty garbage editorially recently:

 

 

 

 

Well maybe what Knapp said in the other thread is taking hold - Robert Murdock owns Fox and WSJ.  We know how pro Trump Fox news is - it is probably now being pushed on WSJ also.

this is what happens when one organization gets too big and holds too many media outlets.  WSJ had always been known as a balanced, reliable conservative paper - perhaps we are seeing its slide away from that.

[RedDenver]

2 hours ago, deedsker said:

Link

 

Sometimes they mix in fake documents with true to give validity to fake information they want to make someone look bad.

 

You realize that Wikileaks did NOT release the documents before the election but instead verified the email addresses and only released the ones they verified as true? From the article:

 

Quote

 

At the time, WikiLeaks did not publish the Macron documents themselves, but said they were doing so now after attempting to verify the authenticity of the email addresses.

...

WikiLeaks said it found 21,075 verified emails in an archive of 71,848 emails, along with 26,506 attached documents, which it also published. They spanned the eight years between March 2009 and April 2017, the month of the first round of the French election.

 

The French election was May 7th; Wikileaks released the documents on July 31st.

 

What Wikileaks did prior to the election was tweet that the hacked documents existed. (The documents were posted on a site called Pastebin.) This article from May 6 gives a good breakdown of the timeline of events:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-election-cyber/u-s-far-right-activists-wikileaks-and-bots-help-amplify-macron-leaks-researchers-idUSKBN1820QO

 

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

WikiLeaks' slant isn't debatable. They have become a Putin propaganda tool. There has to be tons and tons of incriminating evidence out there about Trump, but they never publish it. If that isn't slanted, what do you call it?

It is debatable. Wikileaks is an anti-secrecy organization and releases documents that aren't publicly released. If they have / are given documents, then they release them. If it's shown that they withheld documents damaging to Trump or Russia, then I'd agree with you, but otherwise you're speculating.

[Danny Bateman]

Hannity leading off with the REAL news.

 

[knapplc]

3 hours ago, RedDenver said:

It is debatable. Wikileaks is an anti-secrecy organization and releases documents that aren't publicly released. If they have / are given documents, then they release them. If it's shown that they withheld documents damaging to Trump or Russia, then I'd agree with you, but otherwise you're speculating.

 

If I say I'm a Sooner fan focusing on all things Boomer, but all I do is post about how awful Texas is... at some point you have to think maybe I'm more anti-Texas than pro-Sooner.

 

Just because someone says they're something doesn't mean that's what they are.  You have to take them at face value, not rely solely on their words.

[RedDenver]

12 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

If I say I'm a Sooner fan focusing on all things Boomer, but all I do is post about how awful Texas is... at some point you have to think maybe I'm more anti-Texas than pro-Sooner.

 

Just because someone says they're something doesn't mean that's what they are.  You have to take them at face value, not rely solely on their words.

And if all the anti-Texas stuff they post is true, then they're still a good source of evidence for anti-Texas stuff. That doesn't mean you should believe that there isn't another side to the story.

 

I mean, do you not think the Panama Papers were not worth releasing or examining because Wikileaks released them instead of another source?

 

And we could apply your reasoning to say that you shouldn't watch NBC, ABC, etc. because they don't tell the whole story all the time either.

[commando]

wiki leaks is  an alt right controlled site that russia helps.   it would be good if there was an alt left wiki leaks to balance the revealed secrets out.  or maybe it would be good if some  state secrets were to remain secret.   

[RedDenver]

8 minutes ago, commando said:

wiki leaks is  an alt right controlled site that russia helps.   it would be good if there was an alt left wiki leaks to balance the revealed secrets out.  or maybe it would be good if some  state secrets were to remain secret.   

You really think Wikileaks is alt-right? I see the argument for pro-Russia but not alt-right.

 

Some state secrets are remaining secret - that's not even in question. But I absolutely disagree with governments having absolutely secrecy. That's how authoritarian and non-democratic regimes stay in power. The NSA was (and probably still is) spying on American citizens, and the former head of the NSA, James Clapper, lied under oath to Congress about it. We wouldn't know that if Wikileaks hadn't revealed it. If real investigative journalism came back to the US, then a site like Wikileaks wouldn't be necessary.

[knapplc]

38 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

And if all the anti-Texas stuff they post is true, then they're still a good source of evidence for anti-Texas stuff. That doesn't mean you should believe that there isn't another side to the story.

 

I mean, do you not think the Panama Papers were not worth releasing or examining because Wikileaks released them instead of another source?

 

And we could apply your reasoning to say that you shouldn't watch NBC, ABC, etc. because they don't tell the whole story all the time either.

 

 

With this logic, Brietbart, Fox News, et al, are not biased because some of their "news" is true some of the time.  Think about what you're saying.

 

Are you a fan of WikiLeaks?

 

[RedDenver]

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

 

With this logic, Brietbart, Fox News, et al, are not biased because some of their "news" is true some of the time.  Think about what you're saying.

 

Are you a fan of WikiLeaks?

 

This comparison is wrong. Fox News, etc. lies in their reporting. Not just misreported and then retracted, but knowingly says things that aren't true. Show me where Wikileaks has lied. (There's an AP story out that some of the emails Guccifer 2.0 reportedly gave to Wikileaks were tampered with, so it'll be interesting to see if that turns out to be true and what Wikileaks's response will be.)

 

I'm a fan of revealing government/corporate/big organization wrong-doings and unethical behavior. Wikileaks is about all there is out there right now. Since Trump got elected, the MSM has been doing more investigative work and uncovering things, which I hope continues. If Wikileaks got replaced by another group doing similar things, I'm fine with that. Preferably Wikileaks gets replaced/joined by a lot of groups doing something similar so that biases by any one group are less pronounced in the whole.

[knapplc]

WikiLeaks likes in that they do not release information damaging to all sides. They selectively pursue their agenda against specific targets. 

 

You can be a fan all you want, but you have to recognize that it's clouding your judgment.

[zoogs]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

I mean, do you not think the Panama Papers were not worth releasing or examining because Wikileaks released them instead of another source?

 

Hahaha, oh, MAN.

 

Did you assume the Panama Papers was Wikileaks because "Wikileaks = transparency in information?"

 

The Panama Papers were not Wikileaks. Among other things, they made Putin look pretty bad. Wikileaks accused it of being a US Gov't operation to besmirch Putin's reputation:

Do you have a different take on the Panama Papers now, or a different view on how closely Wikileaks actually aligns with "revealing government wrongdoing"? 

[Landlord]

26 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Show me where Wikileaks has lied.

 

 

This has already been covered in here. Lying by omission is still lying.

[RedDenver]

7 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

This has already been covered in here. Lying by omission is still lying.

If that's the case, then all news sources are liars.