- Strong willingness to work with mainstream news outlets to create high production quality investigative journalism (Assange has done all he possibly could).
In the beginning, sure, I'll admit you were right on this. The past year or two, however, wikileaks has failed to produce anything of substance. It's "leaks" (of Turkish dessert recipes) have been sloppy at best, irresponsible and dangerous at worst. Not even Fox would be as careless as he was with the personal data of millions of women in an islamist country. Sean Hannity isn't exactly Woodward and Bernstein. - Resilience to meddling by the many enemies one makes (Assange has done well with this).
Has he? He seems to be attempting to wield his power against his enemies. Is that resilience, or vendetta? - Reinforcing the strength and bias-free nature of the institution (Assange has made clear that he finds Trump and Hillary both despicable, yet this comment is ignored by many such as yourself).
His actions state otherwise. I'm not sure who posts more anti-clinton rhetoric, Trump or Assange. Lately Wikileaks' feed has have been emotional responses to criticisms and perceived sleights, and heavily biased character attacks on his perceived enemies. There hasn't actually been any journalism that I can see. - Anti-Hillary
- Anti-Hillary
- Pro-Trump
- Pro-Putin
- Anti-Hillary
- Opportunistic
The AKP leak falls into that last line. The coup happened, it was frightening (I watched two F-16s fly over the city at mach1+ for six-hours, and the helicopter which landed at BJK was so close to us at a cafe we could see the faces of the guys inside when it banked), and they capitalized on that fear to increase their own credibility and to demonize the ruling party here.
Again, your argument is yet another conspiracy theory. You can't argue against this, because no matter what, it's the Cigarette Smoking Man in the background. And the resource-constraint argument is an excuse for sloppy, irresponsible journalism.
The argument that wikileaks is not at all affected by Assange's emotional and mental state seems to be an attempt to make him out to be an altruistic, infallible god, not a human .
Major news caters more towards the people that give them money, and they base their content choices on their sponsors.
It seems that every time Assange has a bowel movement, all of the major news sources write about it as front-page news, and immediately every comment is about how no major news outlet is reporting on wikileaks.
> Are you arguing that the information revealed by the DNC emails is not a reflection of very significant character flaws in Clinton?
I haven't read them all, so can you clue me into what they exposed about her directly in contrast to what they exposed about the DNC organization?
And were you aware of my other point, his attacks on Zeynep from the New York times? She pointed out the danger the leaks put women in. Instead of saying, "hey, that leak wasn't our fault, but mea culpa anyways, we're sorry". Then when she pointed out that if he'd had some Turks read the emails they'd have laughed and said "don't bother", he again went into a campaign of character assaults against her?