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

141–150 of 240 posts

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

#141

Post by jazzyk »

aljones wrote: post #47
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…

"the media" is a bunch of individuals, many of which are not as you describe. They could find trustworthy and thorough reporters to work with if they wanted to. They did before.

There are trustworthy reporters, the challenge is to find trustworthy reporters who will be heard by the masses.

As much as I like The Intercept, for example, they do not have the same reach as the WSJ or the NYT.

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

#142

Post by privateersman »

swalsh wrote: post #66
ceejayoz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I guess the 'problem' is the internet. Without the internet people would be blissfully ignorant of how the media works.

These things have been happening for a long time. Businesses, governments and other entities all have the ability to manipulate the media. I view it as a power struggle that sometimes bubbles up in public.

Oh, and social media is a part of it. Just it's slightly more difficult to control without people noticing.

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

#143

Post by mason240 »

mtanski wrote: post #40
patrickaljord wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it weird that all these critiques from liberals come just when Wikileaks released info that the DNC primaries were rigged. Before that, it was pretty much all praise. Now, it turns out one of their informant may have been the victim of political assassination and you focus on the fact that they released a conversation of a dad and his daughter, which is of course a blunder but still, compared to the other pote…

I think calling the primaries "rigged" misses a lot of nuance about the Parties in the US and the situation at hand. First, parties are clubs and they can have their own rules about their internal elections and campaigns. The rules of the normal election at federal level do not apply. The whole free association thing. Second, Bernie is not "real" democrat. He was prior and plans on returning to the Senate as an indep…

>First, parties are clubs and they can have their own rules about their internal elections and campaigns.

Literally no one is saying otherwise. This is such a tired and ridiculous strawman.

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

#144

Post by mschwaig »

yitchelle wrote: post #23

A serious question :- In the context of this story, what is the difference between wikileaks offering money for information from a whistle blower and a media outlet offering money for a story (ie chequebook journalism)?

One thing is paying for a source for specific information, the other one is accepting a dodgy source and getting paid for that. The flow of money is in the opposite direction.

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

#145

Post by ethbro »

mtanski wrote: post #40
patrickaljord wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it weird that all these critiques from liberals come just when Wikileaks released info that the DNC primaries were rigged. Before that, it was pretty much all praise. Now, it turns out one of their informant may have been the victim of political assassination and you focus on the fact that they released a conversation of a dad and his daughter, which is of course a blunder but still, compared to the other pote…

I think calling the primaries "rigged" misses a lot of nuance about the Parties in the US and the situation at hand. First, parties are clubs and they can have their own rules about their internal elections and campaigns. The rules of the normal election at federal level do not apply. The whole free association thing. Second, Bernie is not "real" democrat. He was prior and plans on returning to the Senate as an indep…

I'd be more inclined to give the two main parties the benefit of the doubt if their survival wasn't essentially guaranteed by the existing federal election method & media landscape.

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

#146

Post by ceejayoz »

dpweb wrote: post #132
ceejayoz wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is, again, not evidence that anything got rigged . The RNC had a similar anti-Trump preference. There's similarly no evidence they rigged anything against him.

There is proof that the RNC did not rig the elections against Trump, he won. That's impossible if it was rigged. While there may not be proof that the DNC rigged it against Sanders, that doesn't prove it wasn't rigged. It only proves that no evidence has come to light that it was rigged.

> That's impossible if it was rigged.

That's simply false. The accusations against the DNC of "rigging" primarily revolve around bias (revealed in the email dumps), not actual electoral fraud. The RNC was almost certainly biased in a similar (likely more intense) manner against Trump.

It's also entirely possible to rig an election unsuccessfully.

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

#147

Post by enobrev »

mtanski wrote: post #40
patrickaljord wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it weird that all these critiques from liberals come just when Wikileaks released info that the DNC primaries were rigged. Before that, it was pretty much all praise. Now, it turns out one of their informant may have been the victim of political assassination and you focus on the fact that they released a conversation of a dad and his daughter, which is of course a blunder but still, compared to the other pote…

I think calling the primaries "rigged" misses a lot of nuance about the Parties in the US and the situation at hand. First, parties are clubs and they can have their own rules about their internal elections and campaigns. The rules of the normal election at federal level do not apply. The whole free association thing. Second, Bernie is not "real" democrat. He was prior and plans on returning to the Senate as an indep…

I'm not exactly sure how to find that the requirement of "paying DNC dues" is defensible. We're not talking about a local sports club.

Don't get me wrong. While I supported Bernie, I feel he was outplayed in a masterful game that he wasn't ready for. I'm not sore about it. Frankly, I'm surprised Hillary didn't win by a far larger margin, considering she had a decade to make deals and sway powerful people her way, and apparently, an entire political machine skewed in her favor.

But the idea that the entire DNC teaming up with a single candidate is to be expected and not taken as simply "rigged" seems intentionally obtuse.

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

#148

Post by typetypetype »

chatmasta wrote: post #109

Of course you'll be called a "conspiracy theorist" for speculating about this case in any way deviating from the official narrative. But the circumstances are extremely suspicious. The DNC voter expansion data director was found shot dead, assassination style, two bullets in the back, in one of the safest neighborhoods of DC. Nothing was taken off his person. No forensic evidence was left behind. Yet the police deeme…

You will be called a "conspiracy theorist" for claiming knowledge of police forensics and investigations without a substantial reference to back the claim up.

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

#149

Post by Jtsummers »

emp_zealoth wrote: post #110
Jtsummers wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither the DNC, RNC, nor any other political party organization is a federal institution.

Doesn't it make it even worse? A private, oblique organisation has effective stranglehold on who gets the shot at presidency with little oversight, because "private"

The DNC is a private entity, and can act (internally) just about any way they want. You and I are free (well, constrained by finances I suppose) to establish our own parties that act however we want. Freedom of association and all.

People don't have to join the Democrats or the Republicans. Those who do make that choice are now learning that these parties function exactly like any other corporate entity. Some sort of oligarchy calling the shots over a pseudo-democratic process that they ostensibly claim to be the real process. Time for the schisms.

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

#150

Post by jonstokes »

The tinfoil hat crowd was having a field day with this murder before Assange did this, single-handedly moving the "DNC assassination" meme from infowars to outlets like the WaPo.

Assange is an anarchist who wants to burn down the system, and he's really smart. I don't know why Seth Rich was killed, but the only thing Assange's actions say to me is that Assange saw an opportunity to pour gasoline on a fire and he took it. In other words, all the Wikileaks offer brings to this story is a reminder that Assange is really good at stirring stuff up.

Post reply on HN