It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: theantediluvian
Wiki has NEVER had to retract anything they publish. How many can say that in this vast ocean of journalistic integrity?
Why would they have to retract anything? They're dumping documents. It's about controlling what gets released, when and how to achieve a desired result.
For the record, Wikileaks has always focused on malfeasance and cover ups at the highest state levels. As a result, the majority of their revelations will, obviously, be directed at whoever has most recently been in a position of authority and clearance. In that election, Clinton ran as the experienced, established, extension of the outgoing president. Any Wikileak documents collected on the White House during the prior 8 years were going to be viewed as a negative against her.
Wikileaks is no friend of The Narrative. Doesn't make them bad guys, contrary to the American propaganda machines in the MSM... it just means they bring the pain to those who deserve to feel every screaming, searing, hot inch of it.
But, are we really going to make a comparison of a small-time journalist' opinion vs the great news corps?
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Rosinitiate
The Intercept is a very reliable source, one of the best.
They're a true whistle-blower outlet, Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald started it after they broke the Snowden story along with Reality Winner.
One of the authors of this article verified the authenticity of the Twitter group messages by logging in using Hazelpress’s credentials. Throughout this article, The Intercept assumes that the WikiLeaks account is controlled by Julian Assange himself, as is widely understood, and that he is the author of the messages, referring to himself in the third person majestic plural, as he often does. The Intercept has also preserved typographical errors in quoted material.
WikiLeaks did not respond to a request for comment, sent several days before publication.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: theantediluvian
For the record, Wikileaks has always focused on malfeasance and cover ups at the highest state levels. As a result, the majority of their revelations will, obviously, be directed at whoever has most recently been in a position of authority and clearance. In that election, Clinton ran as the experienced, established, extension of the outgoing president. Any Wikileak documents collected on the White House during the prior 8 years were going to be viewed as a negative against her.
I am reminded of this little gem...
www.realclearpolitics.com...
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN: Remember, it is illegal to possess these stolen documents. It is different from the media. So everything you learn about this, you are learning from us.
Wikileaks is no friend of The Narrative. Doesn't make them bad guys, contrary to the American propaganda machines in the MSM... it just means they bring the pain to those who deserve to feel every screaming, searing, hot inch of it.
“At this point, considering the power exercised by WikiLeaks, [disclosing] literally anything Assange says is in the public interest,” Hazelpress told The Intercept, including Assange’s political position during the 2016 selection, since “WikiLeaks purports to be a neutral transparency organization.”
originally posted by: theantediluvian
Except WikiLeaks didn't release documents collected from the White House (or even the government). They released documents from the DNC and they released John Podesta's personal emails.
Real transparency is neutral. Selectively releasing material to fit an agenda is not promoting transparency, it's trying to pick winners and losers.