Well I guess we have to agree to disagree then. If a "foreign spy" reports that Dow Checmial is dumping pollution in the river, I'm gonna question Dow first, not the spy.
No one is saying the information is false or should be ignored. To use your example, if there were reason to believe that this spy was revealing this information on behalf of Dow's competitors to influence the market and shield/draw attention away from their own malfeasance, that's a concern. The source and the intent of the source does actually matter.
That was precisely the intention behind characterizing Assange as a Russian spy during the election.
More broadly, it's that Assange uses the guise of a seemingly-neutral Teller of Truths to dole out information for the purpose of manipulation, either for his own or other people's agendas.
Exactly. This accusation was intended to be equal parts distraction from the contents and ad hominem.
They also mooted the idea that he was a pedophile for a while, but it didn't really take.
>either for his own or other people's agendas.
But of course. She literally expressed a desire to see him murdered because of him doling out secrets. Who would take kindly to that?