Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government Crime The Media United States Politics

Should Journalists Ignore Some Leaked Emails? (backchannel.com) 361

Posted by EditorDavid from the In-Soviet-Union,-emails-ignore-you dept.
Tuesday Lawrence Lessig issued a comment about a leaked email which showed complaints about his smugness from a Clinton campaign staffer: "I'm a big believer in leaks for the public interest... But I can't for the life of me see the public good in a leak like this..." Now mirandakatz shares an article by tech journalist Steven Levy arguing that instead, "The press is mining the dirty work of Russian hackers for gossipy inside-beltway accounts." This is perfectly legal. As long as journalists don't do the stealing themselves, they are solidly allowed to publish what thieves expose, especially if, as in this case, the contents are available to all... [But] is the exploitation of stolen personal emails a moral act? By diving into this corpus to expose anything unseemly or embarrassing, reporters may be, however unwillingly, participating in a scheme by a foreign power to mess with our election...

As a 'good' journalist, I know that I'm supposed to cheer on the availability of information... But it's difficult to argue that these discoveries were unearthed by reporters for the sake of public good...
He's sympathetic to the idea that minutiae from campaigns lets journalists "examine the failings of 'business as usual'," but "it would be so much nicer if some disgruntled colleague of Podesta's was providing information to reporters, rather than Vladimir Putin using them as stooges to undermine our democracy." He ultimately asks, "is it moral to amplify anything that's already exposed on the internet, even if the exposers are lawbreakers with an agenda?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Should Journalists Ignore Some Leaked Emails? More

Should Journalists Ignore Some Leaked Emails?

Comments Filter:

  • Snowden also did something illegal (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NotInHere ( 3654617 ) on Saturday October 22, 2016 @06:36PM (#53131869)

    also, look at watergate. Journalists both used that content.

    • Re:Snowden also did something illegal (Score:5, Interesting)

      by 0100010001010011 ( 652467 ) on Saturday October 22, 2016 @06:46PM (#53131917)

      Pentagon Papers [wikipedia.org]

      New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the First Amendment. The ruling made it possible for the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship or punishment.

      • Re:Snowden also did something illegal (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Xenographic ( 557057 ) on Saturday October 22, 2016 @07:38PM (#53132139) Journal

        Well, the GOP offices have been firebombed [go.com] ("Nazi republicans get out"). Someone here on Slashdot was calling that a "Reichstag fire" (yeah, umm, so where are the riots over it? oh, right... the GOP doesn't stage those). People on the Democratic payroll (MoveOn, specifically) were responsible for staging the violence at Trump rallies and then blamed Sanders supporters for it [slashdot.org]. Oh, and there was a mysterious DC "robbery" (where nothing was taken) with the guy shot twice in the back in the middle of the night. Who was an insider that may have been responsible for some leaks. Don't worry! Fact checkers "debunked" that due to there being "no evidence" on the same day (investigate? why?). The killer has not been caught.

        But we can ignore that because Russia? If Putin wanted to influence the elections, it's pretty clear that he could've just donated to the Clinton foundation like Qatar, Saudi Arabia and everyone else.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by NotInHere ( 3654617 )

          Agreed, Putin shouldn't try to play cheap by appointing his own puppet instead of paying Clinton like everyone else is doing it. He isn't something special, same rules apply for all bribers. If he's outbid by Qatar, he shouldn't be mad, but instead raise his bid.

          • Note that getting his own puppet appointed is really expensive. Presidential bids passed the billion dollar mark a couple of election cycles ago.

            It's actually waaaay cheaper to buy a piece of the Clintons via their Foundation than to finance a Presidential campaign....

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Tablizer ( 95088 )

          Underlings on both sides have been caught doing nasty things. If you don't want to sound like a biased douche, present both.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Sure, show us the GOP funding people to cause riots at political rallies and we will. Until then, we have the DNC and Clinton's campaign directly paying people who shut down Trump's Chicago rally. One woman paid 11 days by Clinton's campaign before that rally.

            So both are equally as bad as each other, if you ignore that the DNC itself is funding things and the GOP isn't. You also have to ignore that no Clinton rallies have been cancelled, but Trump rallies have been by paid protesters who attempted to fra

        • Re:Snowden also did something illegal (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Cyberax ( 705495 ) on Sunday October 23, 2016 @01:15AM (#53133103)
          Do you know that people on the Democratic payroll also initiated a crowdfunding campaign to replace the firebombed office in NC? Do you know that the target for this campaign had been reached in just 40 minutes?

          No? I guessed so.
        • "(yeah, umm, so where are the riots over it? oh, right... the GOP doesn't stage those). " Nobody riots after planned parenthood facilities get messed up. People riot once innocents have died.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Legality does not determine morality.
      Motives matter.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by guruevi ( 827432 )

        Motives can only be determined when someone has the full story and is not the only part of legal process either.

        Either way, we are talking about things that are part of public record. Just because someone (HRC) doesn't/didn't want them to be part of public record and used a personal account to hide them doesn't mean they shouldn't be.

        If HRC wouldn't have cheated; these records could've been obtained by FOIA request and would've happened in a real election or the stonewalling of the FOIA by the administratio

        • Re:Snowden also did something illegal (Score:4, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 22, 2016 @08:42PM (#53132323)
          You've lost track of the story, which is about campaign emails stolen from the DNC and Clinton's campaign manager. This isn't about State Department emails sent and received during Clinton's time as Secretary. The emails in question were not part of the public record, and not subject to FOIA.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Rob Y. ( 110975 )

            Which brings up another question. If HRC had used two email accounts, and Podesta or others of her confidantes outside of the government had communicated with her on the private one - not subject to FOIA requests - would that have been fine?

            Because that's what I think she used the private email server for. Like she said, anything sent to her from inside the State Department was archived there and available for FOIA requests. But private stuff with personal acquaintances - even if potentially related to h

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Just because someone (HRC) doesn't/didn't want them to be part of public record and used a personal account to hide them doesn't mean they shouldn't be.

          Hello? Why are you mixing up clinton's email server with messages from the DNC to which clinton was not even a party?
          DNC email is not part of the public record.
          There have been no "leaks" from clinton's email server.

          I swear this mixing and matching of half-understood non-scandals practically defines the internet discussion about clinton. Its disheartening how much bullshit is out there and even worse, how often it gets upmodded.

      • The other meaning of Orwellian (Score:5, Insightful)

        by poity ( 465672 ) on Saturday October 22, 2016 @09:30PM (#53132471)

        "[...]The argument that to tell the truth would be ‘inopportune’ or would ‘play into the hands of’ somebody or other is felt to be unanswerable, and few people are bothered by the prospect of the lies which they condone getting out of the newspapers and into the history books." -George Orwell, The Prevention of Literature

        The truth remains the truth, even if unsavory people are beneficiaries of it.

    • Yes, selecting the US president isn't "gossip" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Saturday October 22, 2016 @07:00PM (#53132003) Journal

      Agreed. The article tries to cast this is "for gossip". No. Kim Kardashian's emails would be gossip. An inside look at the actions of the US Secretary of State, who is running for President, is far more important than mere gossip. As is bringing to public scrutiny the process used to select the candidates. The purpose of the DNC is to put people in charge of running a superpower nation, and to strongly influence the policies of the United States. How that's done, by whom, for what reasons and what the back room deals are is all information of importance to The People.

      • Re:Yes, selecting the US president isn't "gossip" (Score:4, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 22, 2016 @07:18PM (#53132055)

        Not only that, email isn't "a private record."

        The company I work for made it very clear that we should not treat email as anything private, that anything we say in email should be considered being on the public record.

        Not because they were afraid of being hacked, but because emails, as "written documents," can be subjected to subpoenas.

        If you're using your work email account to "gossip" you're doing it wrong. Since all the emails leaked so far have been used by Clinton campaign staffers for Clinton's campaign, they're all fair to report on.

      • This election cycle makes me genuinely curious as to how much money/thought is spent on leading the public away from the real stories. It's like the media has finally mastered the art of turning a scandal into a meta-scandal. Something damaging comes out about a candidate and no one cares. They care about the source of the information. Trump probably *could* shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and not lose votes. Because the media would focus on how the shooting was caught on camera. Or the back

      • Re:Yes, selecting the US president isn't "gossip" (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Gavagai80 ( 1275204 ) on Saturday October 22, 2016 @08:56PM (#53132357) Homepage

        Those parts of the emails are valid to report on. Stuff like a staffer thinking Lessig is smug is not valid to report on. It's like the diplomatic cable leaks a few years ago -- a few of them were important revelations in the public interest, and most of them were unimportant gossipy personal stuff that unnecessarily strained all sorts of international relationships. Good reporters report on the part that matters, bad reporters just try to find something salacious to poke a bee hive.

        • Re:Yes, selecting the US president isn't "gossip" (Score:4, Insightful)

          by AthanasiusKircher ( 1333179 ) on Saturday October 22, 2016 @11:49PM (#53132911)

          Those parts of the emails are valid to report on. Stuff like a staffer thinking Lessig is smug is not valid to report on.

          Who determines what is "valid" to report on?

          Good reporters report on the part that matters, bad reporters just try to find something salacious to poke a bee hive.

          Yeah, except "the part that matters" is never some objective category valid for all places, times, and people. This site used to have a tagline about "stuff that matters," but the reality is that a lot of the stuff posted here didn't "matter" to the vast majority of people in the world. Meanwhile, a lot of stuff that "matters" to the vast majority of the world wouldn't be of interest to a significant portion of the audience here (e.g., sports, celebrity gossip).

          Here's the reality of journalism -- the "news" is mostly about selling stuff, NOT informing people. Yes, "good journalists" who want to be respected generally tend to focus on certain topics and ignore others, but they are conscious of the "bottom line" like everyone else. And if some reporter claims to be completely oblivious to stuff like that, you can darn well bet their editor isn't.

          So, the question is rarely "Is this too salacious to be 'legitimate' news, or does it 'matter'?" The question is usually, "We know that this will get a lot of clicks/sell a lot of ads/papers/whatever. But will it piss off our readership or advertisers if we do so?" Somewhere down the list, far below that set of concerns about revenue, maintaining readers and advertisers, etc., are things like, "Is this 'respectable journalism'?" Or, "Does this matter?"

          Because, let's be honest here -- even if something appears to be "too salacious" to be a story, if it gets caught up by SOME major media source, eventually most of the other major media will start reporting on it. You don't want to be the newspaper or whatever who steps "out of line" and starts looking like a cheap tabloid, but as long as everybody else is writing about it, it's gonna be fair game.

          What really "matters"? Human life? Well, most Americans (even educated liberal well-meaning and loving ones) don't really have much interest in African news. I mean, some say they do -- but they really don't care about reading about that stuff every day, even if every day is pretty much a bad day for millions of people in Africa.

          Meanwhile, is the Queen of England having another great-grandchild?!? Let's devote weeks of news for that. Does that "matter"? I don't mean to pick on the royals -- any celebrity gossip will do. Or what about sports? Does that really "matter"? It's certainly not going to have as much of an impact as that genocidal African dictator, but editors know that there are loads of people who basically pull the "sports section" out a newspaper (or do the equivalent online) and ignore most of the rest.

          But to bring this back to the current political stuff and scandals, we basically end up in a situation where fans of politician A think stuff "doesn't matter" and publishing it is "salacious" but people who don't like politician A definitely think it matters. To many fans of Bill Clinton, the various scandals about possible affairs and interns "didn't matter" compared to his leadership capabilities as President. To some Trump fans, clearly his views on women also "don't matter" to the evaluation of his leadership abilities. (I'm not equating these two people or their actions by any means, just noting similar reactions I've noted among fans.)

          To those fans, publishing a bunch of stories about such stuff is just "salacious" and yellow journalism, which is targeting stuff that should be irrelevant to their political life. To others, this "matters" deeply and it's irresponsible NOT to publish something that tells you something about their "character."

          Anyhow, getting to TFA, the question of where information came from is WAY down the list, far below other ethical concerns about jour

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      The US has great protections for the press to stop tyranny. Color of law and "secrets" cant be used to cover up crimes or other issues.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by bongey ( 974911 )

        Doesn't work when the "press" aka propaganda for Clinton has an agenda. Journalist don't have some sort of moral authority over everyone else.

  • Ignore them only if it hurts your political master (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ArtemaOne ( 1300025 ) on Saturday October 22, 2016 @06:39PM (#53131885)
    If it is the bad guy instead, go for it, expose them! But it seems we already do this.

  • Messenger (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phrobot ( 877647 ) on Saturday October 22, 2016 @06:44PM (#53131901)
    Would journalists have ignored Nixon's crimes if Deep Throat was a Russian?
    • During the middle of the Cold War, yes. But the advice to follow the money would still be damning to the Nixon Administration.

    • Would journalists have ignored Nixon's crimes if Deep Throat was a Russian?

      No. It was the story of the century.

      Interestingly, the Watergate scandal was essentially hacking the other side for information before the act could be performed electronically.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *
        Hitler invading Poland was the "story of the century".
        • A sound argument.

          Depending on your point of view, a strong case could be made for the '69 moon landing. Still, Watergate was pretty big.

      • No. It was the story of the century.

        There were many bigger stories during the 20th century. Even on the topic of corruption in American politics, Watergate wasn't the biggest. The wholesale cheating by JFK and LBJ during the 1960 election, especially in Illinois and Texas, was much bigger, and actually made a difference since the 1960 election margin was razor thin. They stole the election ... from Nixon ... and the press (mostly) ignored it. Watergate had no effect on the 1972 election. It would have been a landslide with or without chea

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Would journalists have ignored Nixon's crimes if Deep Throat was a Russian?

      Or better yet, would journalists have ignored Deep Throat's revelations if the Nixon administration had claimed that he was a tool of the Soviets?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Watergate took some time to gain traction with the wider public. Only the help of an insider gave the overview to follow the funding.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
      'A protracted period of clue-searching and trail-following then ensued, with reporters, and eventually the United States Senate and the judicial system probing to see how far up the Executive branch of government the Watergate scandal .."
      The tame US political press pushed massive counter narratives to cover for political power at the time

  • Palin was treated differently. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Salo2112 ( 628590 ) on Saturday October 22, 2016 @06:45PM (#53131905)
    These was none of this navel gazing when Sarah Palin's emails were stolen. In fact, the press crowdsourced reading them in their search for dirt on her. Why would this be any different for Hillary Clint..... Oh, party affiliation. Forgot. Carry on, then.

    • These was none of this navel gazing when Sarah Palin's emails were stolen. In fact, the press crowdsourced reading them in their search for dirt on her. Why would this be any different for Hillary Clint..... Oh, party affiliation. Forgot. Carry on, then.

      What you're experiencing is selective bias. That's one of the reasons you're not even thinking of the Connie Chung incident.

      Mrs. Gingrich said she could not say what her son thought about First Lady Hillary Clinton on the air. Chung asked Mrs. Gingrich to "just whisper it to me, just between you and me," and Mrs. Gingrich replied that her son thought of Clinton as a "bitch."

      No one blamed Newt Gingrich for his private view. And Connie Chung was an idiot, her career pretty much went downhill after that.

      And what you perceive as navel gazing is actually just more gossiping by Steven Levy (in the form of fake journalistic outrage). It's the same reason all journalists criticized Connie Chung after her breach of confidence, not because they had journalistic int

  • Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tanktalus ( 794810 ) on Saturday October 22, 2016 @06:45PM (#53131911) Journal

    As long as what they report on is true and unbiased, yes. I don't care if it's on the HRC campaign or the Trump campaign, as long as it is objectively true. I would rather the politicians were honest and transparent, and if it takes a foreign power to force it, I have a hard time complaining.

    Leave the pontificating to the pundits. Journalists should merely report the truth.

    And, no, I don't care for Hillary "embarrassing" herself. That may be truthful, but it's not any more germane to the discussion than Trump embarrassing himself (even though that gets reported on as well on a regular basis - we don't need Russian interference to see it). The juicy bits, such as it were, would be any case of unethical and/or illegal behaviour. I haven't really followed the leaks, so I don't know if there is any such bits in there. Ideally, all candidates would behave in perfectly ethical manners, but few do. I doubt HRC or Trump do, and that's what should be reported on.

    The standard should be "truth" and not "where it comes from." We reserve that standard for the justice system where unethical police officers could get away with illegal behaviour to make a case without those limits.

    • Damnit, I read the question backwards. I read it as "should reporters report on stuff that may have come from illegal sources" isntead of "should reporters ignore stuff that came from illegal sources." My bad.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Fiction does not get party political staff to quit. So just keep on reporting and telling the truth.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by murdocj ( 543661 )

      So if it's ok for the Russians to manipulate a US election, I assume you are ok with the CIA meddling with foreign countries to put leaders into power. Right?

  • "can't for the life of me see the public good" (Score:3)

    by cirby ( 2599 ) on Saturday October 22, 2016 @06:51PM (#53131955)

    ...beside showing a smug academic that the Democrats actually hate him? That's a public good in and of itself.

    A lot of academia needs a hard slap in the face to show them just how disposable they are to the people they keep following.

  • And who does Lessig think should be the judge of this public good through which facts will be filtered? Just publish them and let the voters decide.

    • Even journalists complain about his smugness, which qualifies him to censor reporting on the complaints, I guess. It's just how his freedom of speech rolls.

  • At this point in time I'm pretty sure all my emails are in the hands of many entities besides my provider, all of which are thieves by definition. The NSA, foriegn governments, hackers, etc. In fact it's a safe bet that the majority of all emails ever sent are already stolen.

    The last people I'm concerned about are CEOs and elected officials. I'm pretty tired of the back door dealings and making them viewable for all to see is not only making things more transparent it's making these people think twic

  • If we're following protocol (Score:3)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Saturday October 22, 2016 @07:24PM (#53132087)
    you're suppose to give it to a Journalist who scrubs it of the personal and private stuff and just leaves the stuff of public interest. That's what you do if you have a code of ethics and such. That's what's leaving a bad taste in the month from what Assange is doing. He's not cleaning it up before he releases it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 )
      What if the journalists believe that the stuff shouldn't be leaked at all, because it hurts "their team"? Most mainstream journalists are completely ignoring the Wikileaks posts not because of "personal and private stuff" but because it's damaging for Hillary. Scrubbing would just allow further ignoring of the truth.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by swb ( 14022 )

        I think they already do and I think the major media outlets have been soft-pedaling leaked Clinton campaign documents. They've been reporting on them but it sure feels like selective and soft reporting designed to minimize perceptual damage to Clinton.

        If they took leaked emails related to Clinton and really ran with them, it could conceivably damage her campaign, so they aren't.

        Personally, I think they underestimate just what Clinton backers will tolerate and are miscalculating by soft-peddling the informa

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bongey ( 974911 )

      You mean manipulate the output make Clinton look good. Fuck sakes the emails are OUT and NO REPORTING. Just none-sense about what Trump said 20-30 years ago.

  • Russia? You sure about that? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mschuyler ( 197441 ) on Saturday October 22, 2016 @07:28PM (#53132103) Homepage Journal

    There surely are a lot of people determined to pin this stuff on Russia and claim interference, but the newest would suggest it was our own guy: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/... [zerohedge.com]

  • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • After watching (Score:3, Insightful)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Saturday October 22, 2016 @07:35PM (#53132123) Journal
    After watching people (mostly liberal) defend leaks for nearly a generation, and now see a lot of them switching sides when the leak exposes a person on 'their side'.......they're all a bunch of dirty hypocrites.

    Yes, I'm talking about you, dear reader who picks a 'team,' whether R or D. YOU are what is wrong with America. The leaks will keep coming, and you'll see how dirty your side really is.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by quenda ( 644621 )

      and now see a lot of them switching sides when the leak exposes a person on 'their side'..

      Really? How many? How do you know it is not just the noisy small minority?

      Yes, I'm talking about you, dear reader who picks a 'team,' whether R or D. YOU are what is wrong with America. .

      This seems to be a particular problem with America today. Not a generation ago, and not other developed countries. What has changed to become so partisan?
      I could blame the system where Americans register with a particular party.
      Or the optional voting, which makes candidates stir up their base with fear instead of competing for the middle ground.
      Or the first-past-the-post system, which favours the two incumbent parties.

      But none of thos

      • This seems to be a particular problem with America today. Not a generation ago,

        If people didn't vote reliably based on party, then gerrymandering wouldn't work. But gerrymandering has been around for a long time, so people have been voting based on party for a long time.

        The only thing that changed is acerbic found a platform from which to speak.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by quenda ( 644621 )

          But gerrymandering has been around for a long time,

          True, but reports say the number of swing voters used to be much higher.

          When Trump started talking about rigged elections, I thought he might address this gerrymandering, which both parties have been doing for a long time. It is very damaging to American democracy, removing so many voters from having any chance at influencing the outcome.

          • I don't think there's any way to stop gerrymandering other than the voters themselves waking up. California tried appointing a panel of retired judges to draw the boundaries, but it turns out judge panels can be rigged, too. Pretty much any system you can think of can be gamed.

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by Kjella ( 173770 )

              I don't think there's any way to stop gerrymandering other than the voters themselves waking up. California tried appointing a panel of retired judges to draw the boundaries, but it turns out judge panels can be rigged, too. Pretty much any system you can think of can be gamed.

              Well the primary reason for gerrymandering is to cause "lost" votes. Here in Norway we have 169 members of parliament, 150 of them are traditional district-specific votes. Since we got 19 districts, there is 150/19 = ~7.9 seats/district though they're actually distributed by population. This means you need like 100/7.9 = ~12.7% of the votes to get a direct seat or even higher in the smaller districts, which is a high bar to pass. But all the spillover votes of parties that got at least 4% nationally - no li

  • it is as moral as police using informers (Score:4, Insightful)

    by superwiz ( 655733 ) on Saturday October 22, 2016 @07:37PM (#53132133) Journal
    If a cop uses shady characters as informers or a prosecutor reduces someone's charges in exchange for a testimony, then that too serves an agenda of a criminal. But its ultimate goal is to unearth the truth about a bigger fish which is engage in shady practices. And in the current legal regime it is considered moral and justified. The same standard has to apply to the journalists. If they are exposing the criminality in the camp of the ruling party's candidate's campaign, then they are doing a public service even if the source is shady and is doing the releasing of the information in the hopes of improving the chances of an opposition candidate.
  • The US needs to see some of Clinton's recipes.

  • Emails of a personal nature, not relevant to public work should be ignored of course.

    Matters of a private sexual nature included. Unless perhaps the emails are invoice from an escort service while the married politician is actively campaigning on "family values".

  • How does anyone know that they aren't being selective in what they release? For that matter, how does anyone know that the data has not been manipulated or even fabricated? It can't even be proved who did the hacking or what the motive is.

    Media will all report it as gospel truth because they can't be seen as missing out on a big story. But nobody knows shit no matter what they spew on about it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kneo24 ( 688412 )
      Nothing coming from Wikileaks has shown to be false in the past ten years, so unless you have something to counter that claim, these emails are most likely 100% true.

  • conspiracy theories (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ooloorie ( 4394035 ) on Saturday October 22, 2016 @08:22PM (#53132261)

    it would be so much nicer if some disgruntled colleague of Podesta's was providing information to reporters, rather than Vladimir Putin using them as stooges to undermine our democracy

    So Clinton's conspiracy theories are now accepted facts? And how exactly do these leaks "undermine our democracy"?

    Heck, when it comes to "undermining our democracy", you should be much more concerned about the billions of donations flowing through the Clinton Foundation and the hundred million dollars the Clintons have amassed from hobnobbing with billionaires and dictators.

  • Suppose you had 30,000 purloined emails, and access to the resources of a major state. A simple disinformation move would be to have minions read them all, and select and modify a tiny number (say, 5 or 10) to become explosive (add a racial slur, a phrase about keeping ill gotten gains, etc.). Make those changes, and then release the whole mess*. Wait for the press to find your land mines, enjoy. Yes, these changes could probably be disproved in court, but that's not the goal of a disinformation campaign.

    In

  • it would be so much nicer if some disgruntled colleague of Podesta's was providing information to reporters, rather than Vladimir Putin using them as stooges to undermine our democracy.

    The American elite has done more to undermine our democracy than Russia ever could. If a colleague of Podesta's dumped the same files onto Wikileaks the effect would be the same. If Podesta's files contained some secret dirt on Trump that he was going to reveal at a later date, I wonder who would be accused of the 'leak' if that were to happen. The leaker withholding such dirt might be considered slant, but that's improbable (and the dirt would be revealed by Podesta eventually anyway.)

  • Tuesday (Score:3)

    by wonkey_monkey ( 2592601 ) on Sunday October 23, 2016 @06:11AM (#53133597) Homepage

    Tuesday Lawrence Lessig issued a comment

    Poor guy. Who the hell calls their kid "Tuesday"?

  • Not ignore. (Score:3)

    by drolli ( 522659 ) on Sunday October 23, 2016 @01:07PM (#53135011) Journal

    Good Journalism always means:
    * look at the source available to you
    * decide which facts you can show by these
    * decide which of these facts are of public interest
    * summarize these facts
    * decide which of your original sources you want to show along with the facts

  • Partisan opinions (Score:3)

    by bobbutts ( 927504 ) <bobbutts@gmail.com> on Sunday October 23, 2016 @03:01PM (#53135517)
    It appears that most of the comments here are coming from people who are heavily invested in one political party or another. If your answer is yes, because Hillary is corrupt or no because Trump is so bad, you are missing the important part of the question.
    It's not ideal to have a foreign power or other non-altruistic entity manipulating media for political purposes. There's nothing stopping such a group from cherry picking which "truths" to publish in order to further an agenda. The timing of these releases, which appear to be attempting maximum impact, and our inability to view the entire source material supports those fears and in my view implicate wikileaks as a partisan entity rather than an altruistic whistleblower tool.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't get suckered in by the comments -- they can be terribly misleading. Debug only code. -- Dave Storer

Close