If what he says is true, why does it matter that its politically favorable to Russia? As a liberal democracy we should strive to be more moral and upstanding, hiding those things for politics is the opposite of that.
How and what information is being presented is an incredibly important part of "the truth" as a whole.
This is simply not supported by the policies enacted during by the Trump Administration:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/09/25/o...
> So Russia has WikiLeaks post only the information on the candidate they don't like, securing the election for a politically favorable but perhaps even more corrupt person.
There are three answers for that: If Wikileaks has a bias than it can easily explained by the fact that Assange's woes were caused by the Obama admistration. And even if they didn't have a bias, most of their staff at Wikileaks do not speak Russian and they try to verify every piece they publish; as opposed to making claims based on partisan funded opposition research. It's also far harder to leak from Russia and other authoritarian/mafious states and also because their intelligence agencies use mechanical typewriters.
I don't think anybody on HN argues that option 3 is preferable over all the other options. You seem to think option 1 is preferable to both options 2A and 2B. GP and I seem to think the opposite.
I can understand your argument that half the truth can be worse than no truth at all. But as there are very few sources for information like WikiLeaks I think in cases like this, half the truth might be all the public can get and it at least gives you a basic idea of what is happening when nobody is looking.
Really? I think that’s probably the most popular option. Why do you say that?
From context, ITYM "disputes", not "argues". Or least that's the only way your comment makes sense; "argues" a position generally refers to supporting that position.
One by dnc and one by rnc. You have video of the dnc one and you don't show it because you lack the other video?
You hide the truth because it is not fair to the first murder that you don't have proof of the other?
> As we have pointed out since Media Lens began in 2001, a fundamental feature of corporate media is propaganda by omission.