Reality Winner, NSA contractor in leak case, out of prison

So this is the real reason why I said don't post conspiracy nonsense -- because frankly, no one cares. And it's annoying to sit here and reply with logic when you clearly do not care about the merit of whatever I have to say.

No one covered those stories? Fox News is the number one rated cable news station. Tucker Carlson has the number one rated show on that number one station and he covered it for weeks on end before the election. So that point of yours is as ridiculous as it is baseless.

Secondly, hello we live in the modern era. Post a blog if you care so much. If the story had merit, if you had evidence, then what is stopping you from making this huge scoop? There are definitely financial incentives to do so. The reason is because you, just like Tucker Carlson on Fox News, are full of shit.

The difference between you and him is at least Tucker Carlson knows he is lying and at least he's getting paid to do so. I assume you are doing this for free.

Are there any credible sources indicating that Wikileaks selectively edited or chose what to publish based on political goals? I think they have some sort of process to validate legitimacy of leaks before they publish them, but I've never heard claims that they intentionally edited or chose not to leak information for Wikileaks own political goals.

Certainly possible that Russia leaked true-but-incomplete information to Wikileaks, but isn't, like, all discussion of reality true-but-incomplete?

Edit: Sibling thread found a claim of selective editing I was not previously aware of. https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-r...

I'm curious if we'll ever get an accounting of the internal organizational power struggles that occurred during the 2016 election. It felt like Assange and his proxies were seeking vengeance through Twitter (to be fair, its claimed Hillary Clinton joked "Can't we just drone this guy" about Assange - no lack of bad blood between them), but that somehow never seemed to bleed onto the Wikileaks website itself.

It's not clear that Wikileaks even knew who their source was.

Short of evidence that they published falsehoolds, I'd still argue that "disinfo" is a misnomer. But your above points certainly demonstrate biased reporting, as is found in any other journalistic organization.

Where do you draw the line between what wikileaks did and other investigative reporting that uses information from whistleblowers? Were the pentagon papers disinfo?

It seems like your position taken to its extreme would disregard all information except info willingly broadcasted by the state, and make us blind to stories of war crimes, corruption, anything else that embarrasses or threatens the state.

Which do you actually disagree with, or do you simply not see how both can be true?

Affecting the outcome of an election is not inherently wrong. Foreign countries affecting the outcome of our elections is dangerous, and has historically been very frowned upon. There's reasons that only Americans are allowed to donate to election campaigns. Our elections are supposed to be for _us_. If whatever countries want a particular outcome start having an outsized voice, our elections will be even less connected to what's best for Americans than they already were.

Those two are not contradictory because the first one is based off the substance of the documents and the second one is based off the perception of the documents. Nothing too substantial was revealed but the existence of the emails was enough to feed into the existing narrative that Clinton couldn't be trusted and it therefore harmed her chances of winning.

>The idea that truthfully informing voters about the views and actions of a candidate was reprehensible if it affected the outcome of the election was never actually justified, it was simply assumed.

Because partial truthfulness isn't that different than lying. Imagine two scenarios:

1. Clinton gets the debate questions ahead of time.

2. Both candidates get the debate questions ahead of time. (Just a hypothetical and not a real accusation)

Story 1 would lead you to believe the Clinton is corrupt and will abuse the system for her advantage. Those two traits were already two of the biggest criticisms of her.

Story 2 would lead you to believe that it is the debate system that is corrupt and no specific candidate was at fault.

Story 2 being true automatically means story 1 is also true. However if you knew that story 2 was true and reported it as story 1, are you still "truthfully informing voters about the views and actions of a candidate"? You are reporting facts but in such a way as to bias the story. I think that is certainly reprehensible from a journalistic standpoint.

Many journalists believed that almost everything in the substance of these docs would be true for other candidates, they just didn't have the documents from other candidates as proof.

It's not schizophrenic - the reality is that false editorializing about a leak can deeply mislead people even if the real content of the leak is completely innocuous (e.g. someone ordering a pizza).

ps. I'm guessing you're referring to the silly "sonic embassy attacks" as the "science" story, but it could have been basically anything else published by the war media in the last several decades.

But the "radio propagation" part makes me think this isn't the right one.