Wikipedia published information it received, would you say the same about any journalistic organization?
This criticism has never made any sense to me, and usually regresses to a non-sequitur comment like, “they didn’t publish any emails from the Republicans or the Russians”.
If people found out what Hillary’s campaign actually did and said, and decided that this didn’t align with their values in a President, that’s not Putin or Assange’s fault. That’s Hillary’s fault.
They lost that cover when they decided it would be a good idea to have an "insurance file." They're clearly willing to pick and choose _which_ information they pass on based upon what benefits _them_.
> would you say the same about any journalistic organization?
I would not, but then again, due to the above, I don't see them as a journalistic organization anymore.
Journalists get imprisoned, killed, etc all the time. Somehow taking steps to mitigate those risks makes you not a journalist?
What on earth makes you think Wikileaks is "Hiding major stories to protect yourself"? Is there a single shred of credible data suggesting that? And even if that's what in the "insurance file" can you fricking blame them for trying to protect their lives?!
I don't know what's in the "insurance file", I doubt you do either. Maybe it's a major story, maybe it's data of no public interest but still extremely inconvenient to the powers that be. Maybe it's nothing -- just an empty threat.
All I know is that I won't condemn Wikileaks solely based on speculations or verifiable smear-campaigns.
Unless it was a bluff. One could speculate that Wikileaks guessed that everybody major has something to hide, and therefore the threatened existence of the "insurance file" would be an effective threat.
Doesn't have to be, it could be already broken stories without potentially dangerous or personally identifiable details redacted. Or any of a number of other things. All we have here is speculation, and speculation is not a very good way to determine the nature of an organization.
If leaked Russian documents surface and Wikileaks refuses to publish them... that's a different story.
That being said, they do have a Russian section on their website, it's just not a priority for the reason above.
> In the summer of 2016, as WikiLeaks was publishing documents from Democratic operatives allegedly obtained by Kremlin-directed hackers, Julian Assange turned down a large cache of documents related to the Russian government, according to chat messages and a source who provided the records.
> ... Approached later that year by the same source about data from an American security company, WikiLeaks again turned down the leak. “Is there an election angle? We’re not doing anything until after the election unless its [sic] fast or election related,” WikiLeaks wrote. “We don’t have the resources.”
(Note that quotes come from different parts of story, refer to different companies. This in second isn't subj of first.)
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l...
Still, we need journalism. Attacking journalistic organisations just because their bias doesn't fit yours is a slippery slope.
One piece of evidence for that is that they have moved to focusing on publishing only what will advance the goals of Russian inteigence.
Another is that when journalists receive a leak they work to authenticate it, ensure it's in the public interest, redact unnecessary personal information, work with whoever is being leaked from (eg the US government) to provide advance notice to minimize harms to ongoing operations, and then release commentery on the leak. WikiLeaks doesn't.
> One piece of evidence for that is that they have moved to focusing on publishing only what will advance the goals of Russian inteigence.
https://wikileaks.org//spyfiles/russia/ You think Russian intel is happy about this?
> Another is that when journalists receive a leak they work to authenticate it, ensure it's in the public interest, redact unnecessary personal information, work with whoever is being leaked from (eg the US government) to provide advance notice to minimize harms to ongoing operations, and then release commentery on the leak. WikiLeaks doesn't.
Wikileaks goes through rigorous protocols to guarantee the authenticity of its material, as far as I know there has been zero claims against the correctness of the materials published. Show me one other journalistic organisation with such a track record. Wikipedia has also made several attempts to coordinate with stakeholders towards responsible disclosure, including with the US government. They were simply stonewalled and would not take "don't publish any of it" as an answer.
Wikileaks IS a journalistic organization, and nothing you can say will change that. Again, just because you don't like their position, doesn't reduce their effectiveness at journalistic endeavours - and they were very, very effective at getting people to pay attention to, and discuss, the heinous conditions of US intelligence agencies and the dire corruption therein which permits further crimes against humanity being committed in the name of the American people.
It is GOOD FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE to have had the Wikileaks - and Snowden leaks - saga occur. This was not 'good for Russia' - but it was bad for 'American warmongers who were, literally, getting away with murder'.
The narrative that Wikileaks was 'against America but pro- Russia' is not only specious, but a clear indicator of duding the real nature of the leaks: America's out of control military industrial pharmaceutical complex.
The fact that we're not discussing the contents of the leaks, but rather the nature by which they were exposed to the world, is a classic intelligence-stooge distraction technique.
Stay focused. Have you read the Wikileaks? If you're an American citizen, they are of immense value to you, with regards to knowing the key agents in your society which actually prevent your democracy from functioning.
If it weren't for Wikileaks, we wouldn't have learned of the DNC's dire corruption, for example. This was a very, very positive action for the American people - who have been being duped by their "two party 'system'" for decades, such that they truly believe its a democracy they're involved in.
As we have learned from Wikileaks, nothing could be further from the truth. American citizens should be very grateful for having had these criminals secrets' revealed, and they should be highly alarmed at anyone who says this "hurt America" without giving actual, real evidence.
Because so far, Wikileaks has been positive for America.