Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 240 posts

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#61

Post by HelloMcFly »

bsbechtel wrote: post #52
Clubber wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why not run it through reporters and if they bury the story, then release it. Snowden ran his story through reporters and it certainly wasn't buried.

Because the DNC leaks implicated a lot of reporters who Wikileaks would have to work with to get this story out.

Even if we generously interpret the "whole lot of reporters", the implication here is that they were left with no reporters to work with. That's absurd. There are many, many reporters, and even many credible reporters. It would not have been difficult to find non-implicated reporters that could deliver this with an impact.

You're acting as if there is a small group of reporters who, if compromised, make it impossible for Wikileaks to be responsible.

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#62

Post by Clubber »

SmellTheGlove wrote: post #56
Clubber wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why not run it through reporters and if they bury the story, then release it. Snowden ran his story through reporters and it certainly wasn't buried.

Think about it like a data project at a company (because that's my job, heh). There's this weird, but accurate, assumption that the first to report something is assumed true, and anything that comes later either has to conform to that or is presumed to be wildly inaccurate. It's not so much the risk that the media buries it, I was incorrect in framing it that way. The bigger risk is that the media spins and reports i…

The media is spinning it and reporting it now. I'm fine with the release, I'm not fine with essentially doxxing all the donors.

Also, Assange is currently putting his own spin on it implying the DNC staffer that died was murdered. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#63

Post by Bartweiss »

dmschulman wrote: post #44
SmellTheGlove wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's simpler than that. In the past, information was passed to trusted reporters because the media was trusted. A lot of what Wikileaks is reporting now is that the media is coordinating with the same people that these leaks are about in the first place. In other words, the media isn't trustworthy. So it's a choice, put it out whole, or take a real risk that it'll never see the light of day. You could argue that Wiki…

That's a bit of a strawman argument. The least they could do is vet the material with reporters, the media would have jumped all over these emails. If their reporting partners for some reason determined they didn't want to run with the story, then WikiLeaks could just go ahead and do what they've already done. The fact that they don't care about the vetting aspect anymore just confirms the DNC leak was petty and pers…

> The DNC isn't even a government, wasn't the whole point of WikiLeaks to hold governments and their leaders accountable?

I agree that this was personally motivated, but that's a pretty laughable claim. A major political institution was attempting to manipulate an election for the US Presidency, but it's outside Wikileaks' purview because the DNC isn't technically part of the government?

Vetting and bias are topics worth discussing, but when political officials using 'neutral' funds try to reshape an election, I'm quite happy to label that a "government accountability" issue.

Edit: removed "state funds" reference, I had misunderstood part of FECA. I don't think it changes the point.

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#64

Post by eli »

ThomPete wrote: post #50
eli wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it helps, I'm a liberal who has found Wikileaks/Assange increasingly obnoxious for years. IMHO you see more people upset about Wikileaks now because they're actually doing things that are more objectionable.

Which could also mean they are doing things that are more important.

I'm sure many Sanders supporters were happy for ammunition to help their case that they were treated unfairly, but I don't think catty behavior at the DNC is anywhere near as important as Wikileaks' earlier work uncovering potential war crimes in Iraq.

And I find Assange's overt attempt to influence the outcome of a US election much more distasteful than anything that was in those DNC emails.

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#65

Post by lallysingh »

ThomPete wrote: post #50
eli wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it helps, I'm a liberal who has found Wikileaks/Assange increasingly obnoxious for years. IMHO you see more people upset about Wikileaks now because they're actually doing things that are more objectionable.

Which could also mean they are doing things that are more important.

Or just more objectionable.

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#66

Post by swalsh »

ceejayoz wrote: post #26
billbail wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take a look at the evidence. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-23/leaked-dnc-emails-c...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge > The site was described by CNNMoney as offering a "deeply conspiratorial, anti-establishment and pessimistic view of the world." Financial journalists Felix Salmon and Justin Fox have characterized the site as conspiratorial. Fox described Ivandjiiski as "a wonderfully persistent investigative reporter" and credited him for successfully turning high-frequency trading "into a…

This is precisely highlighting the point from the parent comment. Is ZeroHedge an untrustworthy source? Heck yes it is! The problem is so is CNN, MSNBC, NYT, and Fox. Nearly every traditional American news source is now viewed as untrustworthy by a very large amount of people.

You can argue with me on it, but what matters is that MANY people now believe this, for example nearly all Trump supporters (and there's a lot of them).

In my opinion, this is the single biggest issue in our new political climate. There is a large, and growing base of people who no longer trust either politicians or the media reporting on them. Conspiracy theories flourish in environments like this, and when enough people believe conspiracy theories are true... sometimes they take actions.

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#67

Post by Clubber »

HelloMcFly wrote: post #61
bsbechtel wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the DNC leaks implicated a lot of reporters who Wikileaks would have to work with to get this story out.

Even if we generously interpret the "whole lot of reporters", the implication here is that they were left with no reporters to work with. That's absurd. There are many, many reporters, and even many credible reporters. It would not have been difficult to find non-implicated reporters that could deliver this with an impact. You're acting as if there is a small group of reporters who, if compromised, make it impossible…

I agree with this. There is no vast media conspiracy. If nothing else, Fox would be all over it, as would the tabloid (most of these days) media. There's no honor among thieves.

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#68

Post by SmellTheGlove »

Bartweiss wrote: post #63
dmschulman wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bit of a strawman argument. The least they could do is vet the material with reporters, the media would have jumped all over these emails. If their reporting partners for some reason determined they didn't want to run with the story, then WikiLeaks could just go ahead and do what they've already done. The fact that they don't care about the vetting aspect anymore just confirms the DNC leak was petty and pers…

> The DNC isn't even a government, wasn't the whole point of WikiLeaks to hold governments and their leaders accountable? I agree that this was personally motivated, but that's a pretty laughable claim. A major political institution was attempting to manipulate an election for the US Presidency, but it's outside Wikileaks' purview because the DNC isn't technically part of the government? Vetting and bias are topics w…

Given how much money goes into an election, this level of collusion should piss you off at least a little if you supported Bernie Sanders, right? It's not an outright fix, but if the deck was stacked, any donations to candidates other than Hillary Clinton were sort of like pissing into the ocean. Maybe a little less satisfying than that.

I agree that it was personally motivated. I just don't care. I want to know if our major media outlets are coordinating with specific campaigns, or if campaign finance laws are being broken in general. I'd love to see those Goldman Sachs speeches that Hillary is looking into for 6 months now.

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#69

Post by eli »

Bartweiss wrote: post #63
dmschulman wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bit of a strawman argument. The least they could do is vet the material with reporters, the media would have jumped all over these emails. If their reporting partners for some reason determined they didn't want to run with the story, then WikiLeaks could just go ahead and do what they've already done. The fact that they don't care about the vetting aspect anymore just confirms the DNC leak was petty and pers…

> The DNC isn't even a government, wasn't the whole point of WikiLeaks to hold governments and their leaders accountable? I agree that this was personally motivated, but that's a pretty laughable claim. A major political institution was attempting to manipulate an election for the US Presidency, but it's outside Wikileaks' purview because the DNC isn't technically part of the government? Vetting and bias are topics w…

You are incorrect. DNC is not state funded.

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#70

Post by tanderson92 »

cynicalkane wrote: post #35
patrickaljord wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was not just preference, they interfered with the media to change their peaces on Clinton. It's not just opinions here, they acted on them.

The context of the "interference" is that people affiliated with the Sanders campaign were accusing them of rigging the Nevada primary, which very obviously did not happen. It's very reasonable for the DNC to work with the media to defend itself against nonsense allegations.

This is false, and your "correcting the record" is only spreading mistruths.

This e-mail in particular is clear discussion of acting on promoting a narrative (i.e. shopping it to news organizations) to discredit Bernie's campaign: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11056

I'm sure you'll find a way to explain that away though.

Post reply on HN