I am curious why your sympathy changed after the recents leaks.
Do you see that as okay?
Next, suppose Russia or China supported an independent actor who did the same.
Is that okay?
Now, remember, these are foreign actors with their own agendas. They may have very good reason to, say, doctor the releases or groom them in a way that best serves their interests.
So, on the one hand, one could argue that information should be free, transparency is important, etc, etc. Ultimately, they're doing everyone a service.
On the other, there is a legitimate question about nations and foreign actors meddling in a sovereign state's electoral process, and the precedent that sets regarding international norms and established codes of conduct.
It's not a black-and-white issue by any means.
Was it the source choice, or the publishers choice? Both?
I would agree with your point if we had a single source of information or only information coming from one side. That is simply not the case though.
FWIW, attacking the source is what you do when the information itself is indefensible.
> Do you see that as okay?
Yes.
> On the other, there is a legitimate question about nations and foreign actors meddling in a sovereign state's electoral process, and the precedent that sets regarding international norms and established codes of conduct.
I don't think there is. What if Russia or China or Germany issued a statement expressing their point of view that influenced the election.
Do you see that as okay?
Russia and China are under no obligation to keep the citizens of the US ignorant of things that candidates for the Presidency of the US would prefer them to be ignorant about. Also, the US has never shown any hesitation in leaking information, commenting on or directly funding candidates or movements that it preferred in either country.
Do you see that as okay?
I don't view it as equivalent.
It's kinda like the difference between marketing and corporate espionage.
On the one hand, we have a sovereign nation stating a position.
On the other, we have a (potentially hidden) sovereign nation exposing the communications of others.
The difference is in the (supposed) attribution of the communication. In the former case people will recognize it as naked politics and ignore it. In the latter, the level of trust in the information goes up since it's (supposedly) attributable to someone from the nation being manipulated, which to me is far more likely to sway people's opinions and effect the kind of manipulation being sought.
Anyway, we can clearly agree to disagree on this one, as fundamentally it's a matter of personal values. Speaking for myself, I would generally prefer that nation states leave domestic politics of other nations alone (and yes, that's a general statement that applies to every nation).
Which I suppose is pretty easy to say until there's a totalitarian regime committing genocide or something...
Like I say, not black and white. :)
And it still needs to be said, there's no proof that the Russian state is involved. This is a cynical deflection to keep us from talking about the content of the leaks; one that prefers to escalate tensions with a nuclear power to acknowledging the truth about what some people have said when they thought no one else would hear.
Maybe I should've picked Switzerland and Norway as my examples to avoid clouding the issue... ;)
unless it happens to be of benefit of the candidate you support, of course. then it's all hunky-dory.
of course I'm just kidding. however, there are people that feel this way, and these folks definitely see the issue in black and white.
I agree that it's not black and white, but meddling in foreign elections goes back as long as it was an option. The US did so with great success in the Cold War.