Assange, Wikileaks and the Trump campaign
- Thread starter Tony L
- Start date
droodzilla
pfm Member
Why do you ask?
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
Intelligent people have never taken anything at face value, no matter what the medium or who the messenger. They've always gone in for fact-checking, and have not relied on a single source of information. Of course, then as now, the voices of intelligent people have been drowned out by those of nutters, interest groups and politicians.
gassor
There may be more posts after this.
merlin
Avatar changed - Town names deemed offensive.
This is my point though Joe. How do people fact check these days with adequate surety that they have access to the correct facts? There is seemingly no code of conduct. There is no ASA. In the case of most current affairs issues there are no peer reviewed papers to access and traditional news sources are routinely being exposed as or being accused of being biased or providing misleading coverage.
If I seek to fact check, for arguments' sake, a medical issue, I can steadily work my way through peer reviewed evidence and academic papers courtesy of search engines that educate and allow me to garner an understanding of a situation.
The more one seeks to fact check current affairs however, the deeper the mire courtesy of electronic media it seems.
That isn't really true. There are stacks of original documents now available online, plus access to libraries, downloadable texts etc., not to mention properly referenced books and academic studies. Takes time, and the information isn't in snappy youtube bites, but it is freely available.
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
But it has always been thus wrt to 'current affairs' as opposed, say, to science/medicine. There always have been multiple sources of information, and it's always been necessary to treat anything you read/see/hear about in the media with caution, because, then as now, all traditional news sources were biased to a greater or lesser extent. As an example, I'm looking at education reforms in the 19th century. In the case of one particularly controversial reform, The Times only reported one side of the issue and even refused to print any letters giving the opposing view. Anyone whose daily paper was The Times would probably have been unaware that there even was another side to the story, let alone the details.
The first modern historian was Gibbon. For 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' he had to research multiple, often contradictory sources. Sometimes it was impossible for him to determine what had actually happened, so all he could do was present the opposing narratives and leave it to the reader to decide, or to do his/her own further digging. It's never been any different in my experience. I guess there are more 'extreme' news sources available, but any reasonably intelligent person soon learns to ignore the obvious nutters. As Oscar Wilde put it 'The truth is rarely pure, and never simple'.
Tony L
Administrator
All true, but surely the first step in any analysis is to rule out the patently absurd, e.g. the ‘Its all the fault of Israelis/space aliens/immigrants/lizard people !!!11one11!!’ gibberish promoted on so many random and hard to accurately identify sites these days. The internet, wonderful thing that it is, has in many ways brought an equivalence between dumb opinion and evidence. It annoys me even further when I see mainstream media following the same route, e.g. putting some incoherent professional gobshite like Toby Young, Nigel Farage or whatever up against a properly qualified climate scientist or economist. There simply is no equivalence.
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
Well, yes. It would also help if the BBC website stopped playing the 'clickbait' game, with non-stories about cute kittens, its own TV shows, or internet 'personalities'. The in-depth reporting is still there, but it takes a bit more digging for.
Is it? I used to have the BBC News website as my homepage until the last round of dumbing down (in 2015 if I remember right). Which was a great pity. I don't go there all that much these days.
merlin
Avatar changed - Town names deemed offensive.
Yet in the nineteenth century Joe, surely all but the most well informed would have had no justifiable reason to question the Times other than inbuilt cynicism as it would have been perceived?
It is easy for historians to point at inaccuracies and biases given the benefit of hindsight. The issue now is that hindsight is rarely required by most - although I would agree that the intelligent person might be best served by waiting for it before commenting on many current affairs issues.
I deleted the BBC News app from all devices as I am, politically speaking, a left leaning individual. Were it not for access to counter opinion from other sources I would have seen little reason to question its output in days of yore given that I would not have has the time of money to both to nip down to Smiths to buy up three or four broadsheets, nor to work through them should I have done so.
It is easy for historians to point at inaccuracies and biases given the benefit of hindsight. The issue now is that hindsight is rarely required by most - although I would agree that the intelligent person might be best served by waiting for it before commenting on many current affairs issues.
I deleted the BBC News app from all devices as I am, politically speaking, a left leaning individual. Were it not for access to counter opinion from other sources I would have seen little reason to question its output in days of yore given that I would not have has the time of money to both to nip down to Smiths to buy up three or four broadsheets, nor to work through them should I have done so.
Still
he said his naim was ralph
The BBC will never be able to provide all services appropriate for all.
The aim is to provide as wide a range as possible, so as to provide a service for the broadest (within limits!) tastes/needs.
Julf
Facts are our friends
Good piece from Rop Gonggrijp, a long-time activist (co-founder of xs4all etc.):
On elections, political violence and WikiLeaks
"I was part of WikiLeaks in 2010: Among other things I helped release the “Collateral Murder” video that showed gun footage of a US helicopter crew killing a group that included US journalists and the people who came to help them when they were shot. WikiLeaks has on many occasions done the world a favor by releasing documents that show us what the world is really like, as opposed to what our governments tell us it is like. But in the election campaign of 2016, it sometimes became hard to distinguish between the Twitter feeds of Breitbart, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign. It was clear to me that Julian had picked a candidate and was helping the campaign, no matter how hard both sides denied it. As much as I like and respect some of the people who work or have worked for WikiLeaks, WikiLeaks itself wasn’t my cup of tea anymore. It was certainly legitimate to publish the e-mails that show how the Sanders campaign was sabotaged by the DNC. It was just the way things were presented that really didn’t work for me anymore. But who am I to tell someone he cannot campaign against a candidate who wants him “droned,” even if in a two party system (fix needed) this means he’s effectively campaigning for someone that I think is even worse?
A few days ago, the Twitter DM messages between WikiLeaks (Julian himself?) and Donald Trump Jr. were published. Assuming these are real (nobody has claimed the contrary), they show WikiLeaks asking for tax returns so as to be seen as more impartial, wanting Donald Sr. to publish a URL (which he did) and wanting for Julian to become the Australian ambassador (nope). It certainly busts the “there was never any collusion between WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign” rhetoric from both sides, but that doesn’t shock or surprise me. What does shock me is this message:
“Hi Don if your father ‘loses’ we think it is much more interesting if he DOES NOT conceed [sic] and spends time CHALLENGING the media and other types of rigging that occurred—as he has implied that he might do.”
Note that there were never any serious indications of manipulations or fraud contra Trump, so this shows WikiLeaks essentially egging on the Trump campaign to cross the Rubicon. Of course history went the other way. We’ll never know what would have happened and whether this would have had any influence.
But given all the preceding rhetoric, WikiLeaks (Julian or whoever else sent the messages) has to have known that calling for a baseless challenge of the outcome is essentially the same as asking the Trump campaign to call on its base (which includes a large number of newly emboldened and staggeringly well-armed Nazis) to take to the streets. This was neither journalism, nor support of a political campaign. This was being a cog in the machine of a fascist uprising. That never happened because the Nazis took a shortcut and won the election. Crazy world."
On elections, political violence and WikiLeaks
"I was part of WikiLeaks in 2010: Among other things I helped release the “Collateral Murder” video that showed gun footage of a US helicopter crew killing a group that included US journalists and the people who came to help them when they were shot. WikiLeaks has on many occasions done the world a favor by releasing documents that show us what the world is really like, as opposed to what our governments tell us it is like. But in the election campaign of 2016, it sometimes became hard to distinguish between the Twitter feeds of Breitbart, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign. It was clear to me that Julian had picked a candidate and was helping the campaign, no matter how hard both sides denied it. As much as I like and respect some of the people who work or have worked for WikiLeaks, WikiLeaks itself wasn’t my cup of tea anymore. It was certainly legitimate to publish the e-mails that show how the Sanders campaign was sabotaged by the DNC. It was just the way things were presented that really didn’t work for me anymore. But who am I to tell someone he cannot campaign against a candidate who wants him “droned,” even if in a two party system (fix needed) this means he’s effectively campaigning for someone that I think is even worse?
A few days ago, the Twitter DM messages between WikiLeaks (Julian himself?) and Donald Trump Jr. were published. Assuming these are real (nobody has claimed the contrary), they show WikiLeaks asking for tax returns so as to be seen as more impartial, wanting Donald Sr. to publish a URL (which he did) and wanting for Julian to become the Australian ambassador (nope). It certainly busts the “there was never any collusion between WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign” rhetoric from both sides, but that doesn’t shock or surprise me. What does shock me is this message:
“Hi Don if your father ‘loses’ we think it is much more interesting if he DOES NOT conceed [sic] and spends time CHALLENGING the media and other types of rigging that occurred—as he has implied that he might do.”
Note that there were never any serious indications of manipulations or fraud contra Trump, so this shows WikiLeaks essentially egging on the Trump campaign to cross the Rubicon. Of course history went the other way. We’ll never know what would have happened and whether this would have had any influence.
But given all the preceding rhetoric, WikiLeaks (Julian or whoever else sent the messages) has to have known that calling for a baseless challenge of the outcome is essentially the same as asking the Trump campaign to call on its base (which includes a large number of newly emboldened and staggeringly well-armed Nazis) to take to the streets. This was neither journalism, nor support of a political campaign. This was being a cog in the machine of a fascist uprising. That never happened because the Nazis took a shortcut and won the election. Crazy world."
Stunsworth
pfm Member
Hey Max, Clinton lost, your candidate KKK loving Trump won. You like Putin, Assad and Le Pen in addition to him. You’re part of the rise of fascism in the west.
Stunsworth
pfm Member
Tony, delete this and my previous post on this thread. Neither are now relevant.
maxflinn
pfm Member
It seems that some people like givin' but not takin'...
Anyway, I shall allow some time for heads to cool and maybe some folk to reflect on their behaviour then I'll be back in a few weeks with a thread about the relationship between the Clintons and the US war on blacks.
Until then, adios!
Anyway, I shall allow some time for heads to cool and maybe some folk to reflect on their behaviour then I'll be back in a few weeks with a thread about the relationship between the Clintons and the US war on blacks.
Until then, adios!
droodzilla
pfm Member
Your choice of course Tony but I think you let max off the hook this time: after all, the content of the wikileaks messages to Trump Junior is indefencisble.
Stunsworth
pfm Member
ROFL. Take your sabbatical Max and reflect on your fevered support of sexual predator, misogynist, racist politician Donald Trump. Your guy won and fascists around the world rejoiced.