Slashdot Mirror
Should Journalists Ignore Some Leaked Emails? (backchannel.com)
Tuesday Lawrence Lessig issued a comment about a leaked email which showed complaints about his smugness from a Clinton campaign staffer: "I'm a big believer in leaks for the public interest... But I can't for the life of me see the public good in a leak like this..." Now mirandakatz shares an article by tech journalist Steven Levy arguing that instead, "The press is mining the dirty work of Russian hackers for gossipy inside-beltway accounts."
This is perfectly legal. As long as journalists don't do the stealing themselves, they are solidly allowed to publish what thieves expose, especially if, as in this case, the contents are available to all... [But] is the exploitation of stolen personal emails a moral act? By diving into this corpus to expose anything unseemly or embarrassing, reporters may be, however unwillingly, participating in a scheme by a foreign power to mess with our election...
As a 'good' journalist, I know that I'm supposed to cheer on the availability of information... But it's difficult to argue that these discoveries were unearthed by reporters for the sake of public good...
He's sympathetic to the idea that minutiae from campaigns lets journalists "examine the failings of 'business as usual'," but "it would be so much nicer if some disgruntled colleague of Podesta's was providing information to reporters, rather than Vladimir Putin using them as stooges to undermine our democracy." He ultimately asks, "is it moral to amplify anything that's already exposed on the internet, even if the exposers are lawbreakers with an agenda?"
As a 'good' journalist, I know that I'm supposed to cheer on the availability of information... But it's difficult to argue that these discoveries were unearthed by reporters for the sake of public good...
He's sympathetic to the idea that minutiae from campaigns lets journalists "examine the failings of 'business as usual'," but "it would be so much nicer if some disgruntled colleague of Podesta's was providing information to reporters, rather than Vladimir Putin using them as stooges to undermine our democracy." He ultimately asks, "is it moral to amplify anything that's already exposed on the internet, even if the exposers are lawbreakers with an agenda?"
also, look at watergate. Journalists both used that content.
If it is the bad guy instead, go for it, expose them! But it seems we already do this.
Would journalists have ignored Nixon's crimes if Deep Throat was a Russian?
that truth is truth, even if it's discovered by Russians.
These was none of this navel gazing when Sarah Palin's emails were stolen. In fact, the press crowdsourced reading them in their search for dirt on her. Why would this be any different for Hillary Clint..... Oh, party affiliation. Forgot. Carry on, then.
As long as what they report on is true and unbiased, yes. I don't care if it's on the HRC campaign or the Trump campaign, as long as it is objectively true. I would rather the politicians were honest and transparent, and if it takes a foreign power to force it, I have a hard time complaining.
Leave the pontificating to the pundits. Journalists should merely report the truth.
And, no, I don't care for Hillary "embarrassing" herself. That may be truthful, but it's not any more germane to the discussion than Trump embarrassing himself (even though that gets reported on as well on a regular basis - we don't need Russian interference to see it). The juicy bits, such as it were, would be any case of unethical and/or illegal behaviour. I haven't really followed the leaks, so I don't know if there is any such bits in there. Ideally, all candidates would behave in perfectly ethical manners, but few do. I doubt HRC or Trump do, and that's what should be reported on.
The standard should be "truth" and not "where it comes from." We reserve that standard for the justice system where unethical police officers could get away with illegal behaviour to make a case without those limits.
These emails are NOT personal and the re-enforcement of Russia in the title is likely suggesting this is a CTR sponsored article.
that truth is truth, even when it's discovered by Russians.
^This. I mean we would only have suspicions and not proof of Hillary's corruption, incompetence and neocon war plans, rather than hard proof. We should all be thankful.
The russia/putin thing is getting old. The guy's password for his computer was P@ssw0rd and he didn't change his iCloud password even days after his e-mails were getting leaked so 4chan people were digging into his iCloud acount after the 3rd email set released included an email of him sending someone his iCloud password and email. Have I been Pwned shows that his email was in the Modern Business Solutions database that was released in october. Seeing his obvious lack of IT Security skills from the 2 above examples, its pretty easy to assume that his password that was in the Modern Business Solutions leak was simply used to enter his Gmail account.
Its absurd to assume a state agent was needed to "hack" this guy's email account.
Russia didn't write the e-mails.
First it was certainty of WMDs, now it is certainty of Russian Government.
...beside showing a smug academic that the Democrats actually hate him? That's a public good in and of itself.
A lot of academia needs a hard slap in the face to show them just how disposable they are to the people they keep following.
Unless Russia comes out and says they did it there is no proof as anyone can spoof. What's not to say the emails weren't leaked on purpose as justification for actions against Russia since they are going against what America wants within Syria. Nothing major or earth shattering has come because of the leaks other than fodder. Stop buying the fear, stop being lead by narcissistic a-holes that are living from their ego's and care nothing about you or your family.
Dumber than dumber is dumb. All of this plarp is making us all barf.
And who does Lessig think should be the judge of this public good through which facts will be filtered? Just publish them and let the voters decide.
Have gnu, will travel.
Pentagon papers
Why aren't we have this discussion Ashbury Trump's tax records that the New York Times somehow acquired. My guess is that whoever supplied them to the Times didn't do it legally.
"Your tax return information is confidential. The IRS and your tax professional cannot disclose your tax information to anyone else without your explicit consent.
If you find out that the IRS or your tax preparer has disclosed your tax information without your consent, you may bring a civil lawsuit for damages. The IRS has steep penalties against tax preparers who disclose tax return information without your permission."
Source: https://www.thebalance.com/tax-information-is-confidential-3192948
Agreed. The article tries to cast this is "for gossip". No. Kim Kardashian's emails would be gossip. An inside look at the actions of the US Secretary of State, who is running for President, is far more important than mere gossip. As is bringing to public scrutiny the process used to select the candidates. The purpose of the DNC is to put people in charge of running a superpower nation, and to strongly influence the policies of the United States. How that's done, by whom, for what reasons and what the back room deals are is all information of importance to The People.
If it's in their best interest.
At this point in time I'm pretty sure all my emails are in the hands of many entities besides my provider, all of which are thieves by definition. The NSA, foriegn governments, hackers, etc. In fact it's a safe bet that the majority of all emails ever sent are already stolen.
The last people I'm concerned about are CEOs and elected officials. I'm pretty tired of the back door dealings and making them viewable for all to see is not only making things more transparent it's making these people think twice about communicating thier corrupt and self dealing practices effectively restricting them and helping to shut it down.
It's pretty funny now as entities always have had this info and it was always used in closed door shady dealings. Now with the Information Age really under way it's kind of refreshing how all this goes public and makes them stew in their own juices. Finally the shoe is on the other foot with the whole "you have nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide" meme.
Only the most delusional of Clinton supporters would support MORE censorship and bias.
Even if it's something found that was stolen?
The idea that something should be disregarded in it's entirety because it came from a biased source is ridiculous. All sources you get for information have some sort of bias or agenda attached to them. When analyzing the information you consider the source and weigh the potential bias against the information while checking with other sources to confirm the information.
On the note of ignoring the minutiae of business as usual in data dumps, you shouldn't ignore or refuse to publish that either. Some things like this may be more gossip than informative, but it paints a little more detail on the picture of the organization or the person the information is about. With large data dumps like this you are bound to find a lot of gossip and uninteresting things mixed in with the major discoveries. If some reporters or news outlets pick up on the gossip, then blame the public for wanting that kind of thing. After all the news outlets are focused on two things, informing people about current events and increasing ratings so they make money. If ratings go up because you put up gossip, then they will print more gossip.
you're suppose to give it to a Journalist who scrubs it of the personal and private stuff and just leaves the stuff of public interest. That's what you do if you have a code of ethics and such. That's what's leaving a bad taste in the month from what Assange is doing. He's not cleaning it up before he releases it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If he was a "good" journalist, then why is he stating the emails came from a Russian government hack as if it were fact? The truth is we don't know if the e-mails were hacked or leaked, nor by whom.
It's funny that I said this generically, yet everyone will be able to fill in the names, no matter the affiliation or level of government.
There surely are a lot of people determined to pin this stuff on Russia and claim interference, but the newest would suggest it was our own guy: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
"The press is mining the dirty work of Russian hackers for gossipy inside-beltway accounts."
I love how you accept the Russians are responsible.
Aw, look at the mewling bitch. This only matters because it is revealing the crimes of Democrats. Suddenly it is time for introspection.
After watching people (mostly liberal) defend leaks for nearly a generation, and now see a lot of them switching sides when the leak exposes a person on 'their side'.......they're all a bunch of dirty hypocrites.
Yes, I'm talking about you, dear reader who picks a 'team,' whether R or D. YOU are what is wrong with America. The leaks will keep coming, and you'll see how dirty your side really is.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"is it moral to amplify anything that's already exposed on the internet, even if the exposers are lawbreakers with an agenda?"
Reminds me of the quandaries as to whether it is moral for modern doctors to act on information that originated from state sponsored torture, be it of the nazis to the jews, or more recently the us government to innocents caught up in 9/11 vengeance fever.
If you really want to get ethically pedantic, you basically get to the point where you admit that every word you choose to speak or not speak is a tremendous act of morality, on a complex spectrum, rather than something some god can trivially say as "still going to heaven, check, or, that one was close, but it's hell for them now".
Responding more to the troll of the headline than the summary, I'd answer- Obviously some journalists should ignore some leaked emails. Especially the ones that have more important stories to be researching and reporting on. Also the ones who have other family and personal commitments that outrank their digging through troves. It's like archaeology digs- We can be pretty glad there are some people who find that stuff interesting enough to tackle professionally, but certainly the world doesn't need to be filled with people digging up every hole they can find. At some point you reach the level of diminishing returns. So again, every situation must be looked at individually. Sorry troll headline crafter, god doesn't have a black and white answer for you today.
If a cop uses shady characters as informers or a prosecutor reduces someone's charges in exchange for a testimony, then that too serves an agenda of a criminal. But its ultimate goal is to unearth the truth about a bigger fish which is engage in shady practices. And in the current legal regime it is considered moral and justified. The same standard has to apply to the journalists. If they are exposing the criminality in the camp of the ruling party's candidate's campaign, then they are doing a public service even if the source is shady and is doing the releasing of the information in the hopes of improving the chances of an opposition candidate.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
The US needs to see some of Clinton's recipes.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The problem is you can't trust digital evidence at all unless you can verify the full custody chain back to source files.
So reader beware on "leaked emails" they may not be what they seem.
The problem such as it is, is that based on what they want to see, a fair percentage of US citizens don't care if the emails are altered. Truthiness, and the crazy they have been force-fed for so many years has melted their minds. If we get a leaked email from 1845 that say Hellery ran the underground Railroad and violated the Fugitive Slave treaty, then by Gad Hellery violated the Fugitive Slave Act in 1845
Fact Check tells us that there was no e-mail in 1845, Mrs Clinton wasn't born yet, and the Fugitive Slave Act wasn't in place until 1850.
Too bad - that's what she did!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Emails of a personal nature, not relevant to public work should be ignored of course.
Matters of a private sexual nature included. Unless perhaps the emails are invoice from an escort service while the married politician is actively campaigning on "family values".
I has become this weird establishment / neo-liberal site that has nothing to do with Linux. I keep visiting out of habit though for some reason.
How does anyone know that they aren't being selective in what they release? For that matter, how does anyone know that the data has not been manipulated or even fabricated? It can't even be proved who did the hacking or what the motive is.
Media will all report it as gospel truth because they can't be seen as missing out on a big story. But nobody knows shit no matter what they spew on about it.
And yet, for all of that, not a single person in the Wikileaks e-mails has denied the content of the e-mails. There's a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over the release - but not a single denial of the accuracy and veracity of what's contained therein.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Actually you CAN CHECK that they are UNALTERED. http://dailycaller.com/2016/10...
So Clinton's conspiracy theories are now accepted facts? And how exactly do these leaks "undermine our democracy"?
Heck, when it comes to "undermining our democracy", you should be much more concerned about the billions of donations flowing through the Clinton Foundation and the hundred million dollars the Clintons have amassed from hobnobbing with billionaires and dictators.
Clinton and Podesta are welcome to clarify which of those E-mails are accurate and which ones have been altered. They are also welcome to provide access to any other E-mails that might provide any other necessary "context".
Suppose you had 30,000 purloined emails, and access to the resources of a major state. A simple disinformation move would be to have minions read them all, and select and modify a tiny number (say, 5 or 10) to become explosive (add a racial slur, a phrase about keeping ill gotten gains, etc.). Make those changes, and then release the whole mess*. Wait for the press to find your land mines, enjoy. Yes, these changes could probably be disproved in court, but that's not the goal of a disinformation campaign.
In this scenario, the press will inevitably become collateral damage, but the perpetrators are not likely to care (and may even view that as a side-benefit).
* If there are integrity checks, such as MD5 sums, either hack them or remove them. I don't think that will hinder anyone with an intelligence agency behind them.
In a U.S. court of law, information that has been deemed to have been obtained illegally will quite often be throw out, and for good reason - not the least of which is that allowing it sets a precedent encouraging the use of anonymous third-party players who step outside our laws to obtain “proof”. If we allow such information “for the public good,” couldn’t the same logic also be applied to our own government? i.e.: they are violating the Constitution and local and federal laws to obtain information on potential “evildoers”.
If a journalist needs only go to an outside source to obtain something they couldn’t get legally otherwise, doesn’t that sort of make our own system moot? There *are* consequences to accepting an “ends justifies the means” attitude for “truths” from the likes of WikiLeaks, no matter how “important” we might see that information at the time.
Yeah, the Clinton's News Network is already doing that. Oh we lost the satellite feed...
Isn't journalism supposed to be reporters taking note of what is "on the street", but checking with known reliable sources and information, in order to prove they at least tried to report the facts? Is it just me, or do I see less and less of that being done?
You're welcome to argue that Hillary is the lesser of two evils, or perhaps that you like her political program; but to be so utterly blind to her duplicity, corruption, and incompetence that you still defend her shows that it is your mind that has been "melted" by years of overexposure to Democratic propaganda.
The press can (and has) suppressed stories in the past about presidential affairs, among other things, but that is a bad thing for the American people. I see no reason to publish steamy emails between husband and wife or other legitimate but embarrassing messages. However, if you are talking about sexual harassment (CEO Bill Clinton banging an intern in the board room (white house) would have gotten anyone else fired from their job immediately) or affairs where the president or politician could be blackmailed about the affair or pretty much any other underhanded, illegal activity should be published.
One of the key functions of the press is to be constantly investigating politicians for corruption and other criminal or undesirable activity. The reason that the Democratic party was hacked is the stench of corruption and illegality were pervasive and why the Dems are freaking out is that it turns out that the progressive Democrats are basically going down the fascist, Nazi path, and the media has been largely complicit in not doing their job of asking the tough questions and digging in to politicians and their actions in search of real news. Just look at Hillary, she has already been the least available to the press of any modern candidate, and the media says nothing. When she is interviewed, she gets softballs, and now due to the leaks we learn that even these are apparently at least sometimes given to her ahead of time so she can prepare a response. Our only hope is the serious, investigative journalists online.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
corrupt regime shielding Hillary from indictment, nobody would care about the petty stuff. But instead, we have a candidate who should be in federal custody. The ethical challenge is not the incidental tidbits, it's how the media overlooked federal crimes and allowed her to get this far.
The moral question isn't about emails from Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. The moral question posted in the story is about private, non-governmental emails sent between members of the DNC, including Clinton's campaign manager.
Hang 'em all.
You're welcome to argue that Hillary is the lesser of two evils, or perhaps that you like her political program; but to be so utterly blind to her duplicity, corruption, and incompetence that you still defend her shows that it is your mind that has been "melted" by years of overexposure to Democratic propaganda.
Now ther ya go - You immediately assume that I think Hellery is some sort of angle and go on the attack. Hey fellow, the answer to my points is not to divert. You go a long way toward proving my point.
You don't care what the truth is.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The old story is, "should we journalists tell the truth even when it harms our own political prejudices?" And sadly, the answer is typically "no". Just like here. If the leaked emails had been damaging to Trump, Democrats everywhere would be cheering the hero Wikileaks again, and toasting with the most expensive Russian vodka they could get their hands on. But that didn't happen. What happened?
The Establishment's chosen candidate (Democrat voters certainly didn't choose her, if you voted in the primaries it was an utter waste of your time) was exposed as the lying sack of shit that she is. Not once have the Democrats denied any of the emails. NOT ONCE. So, naturally, journalists are coming up with all sorts of rationalizations not to publish these, because otherwise the American people might make the wrong choice and choose the candidate who won't put the Establishment's needs first. It's an old story that's been repeated and We The People get fucked every time.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
So the added emails will pass.
And the exact same thing they accuse only those dirty liberals do!
I feel like this whole topic is a setup for the morality of publishing the Clinton emails just substituting a different set of names. Is there are word or phrase for elected officials that say they live by the same set of laws as everyone else but in reality do not?
it would be so much nicer if some disgruntled colleague of Podesta's was providing information to reporters, rather than Vladimir Putin using them as stooges to undermine our democracy.
The American elite has done more to undermine our democracy than Russia ever could. If a colleague of Podesta's dumped the same files onto Wikileaks the effect would be the same. If Podesta's files contained some secret dirt on Trump that he was going to reveal at a later date, I wonder who would be accused of the 'leak' if that were to happen. The leaker withholding such dirt might be considered slant, but that's improbable (and the dirt would be revealed by Podesta eventually anyway.)
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
The first duty of every journalist or news organization is to ignore the truth whenever it negatively affects their political interests. This is because it becomes exceedingly difficult to get your audience to vote for your preferred candidates if leaks or other such things damage the favored candidate's reputation.
If a journalist or a news organization isn't manipulating facts and data for personal gain, well, then they aren't doing their job.
"The russians did it"... from the people who brought you the weapons of mass destruction lie.
"[...]The argument that to tell the truth would be ‘inopportune’ or would ‘play into the hands of’ somebody or other is felt to be unanswerable, and few people are bothered by the prospect of the lies which they condone getting out of the newspapers and into the history books." -George Orwell, The Prevention of Literature
The truth remains the truth, even if unsavory people are beneficiaries of it.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
I'm not "diverting". We're talking about the veracity of the leaked E-mails. Hillary's and Podesta's leaked E-mails are consistent with what we know about her and her campaign. And if they have been manipulated in some way, Hillary and Podesta are free to correct the record any time they like.
What points? Your fabrications like "If we get a leaked email from 1845 that say Hellery"? You haven't made any points. All you have spewed forth is bullshit.
> Why is it that left-leaning groups do not seem as able to get right-leaning operatives on tape, admitting pretty bad things? ...
> If we assume that folks on both sides are up to just the same sort of things, to what should we attribute the reason?
Certainly some conservatives have done, and admitted some bad things. Former Democrat turned reality show clown Donald Trump certainly has. But you may have a point. The worst thing Mitt Romney said was that 47% of voters had already decided to vote for Obama, 47% had decided to vote Romney, and he was now focused on the 6% undecided. They had to try really to make that bad.
Perhaps a difference is that a significant portion of liberals believe that there is no such thing as right and wrong, no good and bad. Many others don't go quite that far, but halfway at least. It's not wrong for them to do anything if they decide it's okay this time (aka if they feel like it). On the other hand, the majority of conservatives can point to the same list of 10 right and wrong ways to act, and most agree on which of those is most important. It's probably easy to do "pretty bad things" when you've decided it's not bad, if you decide so. If there is no right and wrong, only preference, anybody can justify to themselves all sorts of "pretty bad things". In general, conservatives have a steady, objective standard they *try* to live up to. There's little wiggle room in "thou shalt not bear false witness." You can't justify why it's subjectively okay this time.
If the hacks were sponsored by Russia, and occured on Russian soil, then how is it illegal?
Wikileaks has a stellar 100% on the spot record. A journalist verifies (neither DNC nor Clintons campaign did ever deny the authenticity of a single mail) and publish the story. A "journalist" wouldn't do this as another one would get his job if doing so. If a journalist can not publish any secret anymore, everything is going to be secret. Its like those homeland security letters... 9/11 wasn't a second Peal Harbour. It was the USAs Reichstags fire. Stand up for your rights or live without them. Simple as that.
He ultimately asks, "is it moral to amplify anything that's already exposed on the internet, even if the exposers are lawbreakers with an agenda?"
Since they're exposing lawbreakers with an agenda, seems like it's fair.
Thank you Wolf Blitzer.
...a very large sum of money that everyone complaining is going to vote for Hillary Clinton.
I'm sure that's just coincidence.
-Styopa
Any Clinton staffer calling you smug is like Michael Moore calling you a fat-ass.
Lessig has already accomplished more than any hundred Clinton minions put together ever will in their entire careers of public disservice.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
FTFY
Everybody's calling for open government.
Think of this as the grand opening.
True, but reports say the number of swing voters used to be much higher.
The reason for that is because the country used to be much whiter.
Non-whites all vote the same way... Democratic.
The context that surrounds some potentially informative information might not be worthy of leaking by itself, but it provides background information to frame other comments.
e.g. perhaps Lawrence Lessig's alleged 'smugness' says more about the people pointing the finger than it does about Lessig.
For shame...
That's a very convenient hypothetical you engage in, but some of us went through a lot of research to corroborate some of those things with the FEC records, two independent videos, etc.
This would tend to give factual support to a conclusion opposite of that hypothetical scenario in which your ideological opponents act in ridiculous ways.
"...participating in a scheme by a foreign power to mess with our election" -- Ha. The United States has been messing with the elections of other countries for DECADES. You're totally fucked. And shouldn't that be the wake up call for revolution when you've got both sides of politics totally corrupt and illegitimate?!?!
... that you're a lunatic religious american nutter, is that you believe in the inviolability of YOUR TRUTH, instead of THE FACTS.
The standard should be verifiable objective FACT. There is no "truth" out there or anywhere ...
Once you know the facts, then you can look at rationales, consequences, implications. Otherwise your fishing in murky waters, and you've no clue what you've hooked on your line. Facts are: the DNC and the Clinton Foundation are corrupted by big money. They are not principled organizations. And neither are the republicans any cleaner. If you vote R or D THIS YEAR, you're part of the problem, because your a teamster, and not a thinker.
I thought everybody know emails can be forged.
Given the current state of journalism, if a mail, forged or not, makes noise, makes people angry or afraid or sad, thus making their brain more receptive towards advertising, the content will be published and deontology be damned.
Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
Jewish journalists concerned leakers are making leftist politicians and Jewish lawyers look bad. Color me shocked, shocked I tell you!
I'm sure that's what #CrookedHillary would like
Tuesday Lawrence Lessig issued a comment
Poor guy. Who the hell calls their kid "Tuesday"?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
but he opens up and swallows whatever they are trying to shove down our throats; he truly believes Russia hacked the DNC. There is no evidence, just accusations. So much for critical thinking.
Four years ago it was perfectly okay to report a prank that a bunch of high schoolers played on one of their friends as proof that Romney was unfit to be President.
Three words: chain of custody.
Ok, two more: disinformation campaign.
There is literally no way to know how much these leaked emails may have been modified. The source of the leak matters.
Putin using them as stooges to undermine our democracy
1. Hillary Clinton was involved in highly suspicious scheming during the DNC primaries
2. Hillary Clinton has been provided with interview and debate questions beforehand
3. Journalists of "trustworthy" publications are getting approvals from Hillary Clinton's campaign manager before publishing their pieces
Now who's the one actually undermining our democracy again? I can't believe the "journalists" have gone from thorough analysis to shooting the messenger with a shotgun.
If the leaked emails accounted how the DNC bypassed the GPL and plotted to incite violence at FOSS conventions in coordinated attacks against Linux would we even be having this conversation? We should all certainly support Windows(tm) to avoid the "gossip" and shame Russia for its *alleged* involvement instead.
I think it's difficult to lay a blanket statement of whether journalist should/should not use such emails.
For example, performing a data dump isn't journalism, and whoever does it should be held liable for damages,
However, a journalist that takes the time to confirm content, establish the context of emails, and their relevance to the larger story, is doing a service. That should be fine.
otherwise you have yet anohter meat head deciding For You! TRUTH = we all need to be operating on the same TRUTHS
An Elitist would disagree. I'm sure there are some out there..
Good Journalism always means:
* look at the source available to you
* decide which facts you can show by these
* decide which of these facts are of public interest
* summarize these facts
* decide which of your original sources you want to show along with the facts
Whenever a news article's title is in the form of a question, the default answer is always "no".
Oh, so emails that were not actually stolen.
They were officially released under FOIA.
What is wrong with you? How much of a political partisan fucktard do you have to be confuse FOIA with stolen?
https://slashdot.org/submissio...
Might want to fact check that next time. Watch the videos. Look at the corroborating sources. Note that the Zulema lies to the cops and that she fakes illness ("nice acting!") among all the other things.
But don't take my word for it. Watch the videos and compare (not, e.g., the mole on her chest that proves it's the same person). Look at the dates listed on the FEC website in comparison to the rallies.
Think for yourself. Contrary to what some have claimed, you don't need CNN's authorization to look at stuff. The press doesn't have extra rights, particularly not the right to think for us.
ProTip: It's one step towards connecting the inner and outer worlds of those in the email thread.
Where is the public good in being two-faced? The sooner the two faces are united, the better for everyone.
Requiem for the American Dream
Q) What is your favorite color?
A) Trmp is an idiot. Warmongering is good for the economy.
Requiem for the American Dream
With your unclickable three-pixel close bar over the ads. Also the ad bar re-appears after every HTTP post which multiplies the fake clicks. Really? What's the value in that scenario to the advertisers or the users?
Requiem for the American Dream
If you read this comment, you've made it past all the posts by shills which are intended to distract from the underlying discussion.
Requiem for the American Dream
It appears that most of the comments here are coming from people who are heavily invested in one political party or another. If your answer is yes, because Hillary is corrupt or no because Trump is so bad, you are missing the important part of the question.
It's not ideal to have a foreign power or other non-altruistic entity manipulating media for political purposes. There's nothing stopping such a group from cherry picking which "truths" to publish in order to further an agenda. The timing of these releases, which appear to be attempting maximum impact, and our inability to view the entire source material supports those fears and in my view implicate wikileaks as a partisan entity rather than an altruistic whistleblower tool.
In many ways I support these hacked / stolen electronic documents, however, they are not hard evidence. The data can easily be manipulated, even just a bit, to give whatever slant is desired. In concert with other evidence, hacked documents can be persuasive, but by themselves, not much above hearsay.
It is appalling to read people defending the liars, scammers, and what else that are being exposed. Some even call these e-mails "stolen goods from the american people," ha! reminds me of the Stockholm syndrome. What happened with "truth shall set you free"? Man up and accept that hackers bringing this info are not to blame for the terrible deeds of those writing the e-mails, they are just removing the lid so we can see the rats nest under our feet. WAKE UP! We all should be in "disclosure mode" now. If we knew the extend of the problem we are in, we would be shocked.
"Don't get me wrong: It's certainly a nasty tactic to deliberately try to influence the image of the Trump campaign by throwing a bunch of red meat in between his dogs and watch them tear it up, but it does not suddenly make his dogs cute little puppies."
But it does make one wonder what kind of tactical covert well funded super genius dogs the big players have on their teams these days. Technology continues to dramatically empower people further than they have ever before been empowered.
...of Assange and Snowden and any other trouble makers they might take a shine to.
There's been a long stream of these "stories" in the media recently all squarely taking aim at the messengers and not at the illegality and corruption revealed by the leaked (or stolen) documents. Hillary's a shoe in now for the White House so her organization have started laying the groundwork for either issuing warrants or ordering drone strikes. It's seems to all be about building legends around the actors, that they're working for the Russians, that they're traitors, that they're sexual perverts, that they're all of the above so that when we see on the news that one or both of these guys were killed in a car explosion we'll all just go "meh, they had it coming the perverts."
If you saw someone getting murdered but it was through a private residence window would you ignore it because it was not right for you to look through the window?
So, the press is justified in (and proud of, even!) presenting a 'hot-mike' conversation between two people in a van, that occurred ten years prior, _a recording without either parties knowledge_, which in many states would be _illegal wiretap_, but emails by public figures which are electronically hacked are considered off limits (becuase of the person being hacked?) The hypocrisy implies that there is in fact no genuine outrage - only what is convenient for the moment.
Any recent Wikileaks hurt the Trump campaign?
There might be a reason for that.
I would rather foreign governments not throw our elections.
But, hey, karma.
who ever wrote this post is a bloody idiot. Of course you fight for the truth, no matter the consequences. Democracy dies the second you start censoring stuff, and ignoring critical information because it makes you feel "squeamish".
Still claiming it was the Russians? Sunday, an NSA whistleblower came forward and says it was NSA agents upset with Hillary's total disregard for classified material, specifically 'Gamma' level classified information, that forced them to release the emails. He also claims that the NSA has ALL of her deleted emails and they were available to the FBI for their investigation but the FBI did not want to see them. More evidence the FBI investigation was a fraud.
While everyone is trying to deflect the subject to the Russians, why are the explosive contents of the emails being ignored by the media? The fix is in and the media is corrupt as hell.
Journalist aren't supposed to be extensions of one political party - that is why newspapers are dying - why would I pay to read someone opinion that I really couldn't care less about. I find it interesting that most of the BIG political scoops have been by the National Enquirer... When I was growing up those were rags - now the rags are the NYT's and Washingon Post...
I wonder if Lessig would be singing the same tune if it was the GOP being embarrassed by leaks instead of his friends.
If you'll notice, no one has disputed the veracity of the emails. If the emails were faked or altered, the DNC and Clinton campaign would be all over the place driving that home. Instead they're making nebulous statements about how we shouldn't trust them because of the source, suggesting there may be forgeries or alterations but without ever saying so outright. Which is as far as they can go if they know the emails are all legit.
When the East Anglia Institute refuses to respond to FOIA requests because they couldn't hide the decline in temperatures it is de facto / de jure legit for hackers to extract whatever they can get their hands on.
In the same way if a subpeona is issued for Hillary to hand something over and she lies and says she gave it all over, then let the hackers go at it.
42% of voters say their biggest issue of concern is federal corruption!
So.. Lets assume for a second the whole Putin angle is true.
Thing is... how is he "undermining" our "democracy" by showing us the.....truth? Isn't it the politicans being exposed as liars who have undermined our democracy?
Seems to me Putin is doing us a favor, if anything at all.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Okay, you make a fair point in the first half of your post. It had been a long time since I read exactly what he said. I'm assuming that your is accurate.
Quoting you, quoting him:
---
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him
Then you say:
> He says 48-49% of American voters are going to vote for Barrack Obama, no matter what Romney does.
Well no, according to you, he said TWICE 47%. Assuming your numbers for undecided, 5%-6%, that would mean they were neck-and-neck.
...aren't 1/1000th as embarrassed as they ought to be. If they have nothing to hide they won't care about getting their emails published, would they?
No matter how much you deny it, the source of these leaks is likely biased. Otherwise they would be leaking from the Republican National Committee (and affiliated entities, including SuperPACS) as well.
What is the oath a witness swears upon entering the witness stand, in a court of law? "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God."
You stopped after the first phrase, and that's assuming we can agree that the truth is being told by these leaks in the first place. Let's stipulate to that though, because the argument gets bogged and tiresome unless we do. And, importantly, the DNC hasn't exactly repudiated the leaked information from what I've seen.
So the key problem as I see it, is that the "whole truth" and "nothing but the truth" is lacking from the leaked e-mails. Yet you and thousands of others are excitedly proclaiming, "I have the truth! And the means don't matter so long as I get the truth!"
1). The means matter. Even in cases like Manning/Snowden, the means matter;
2). You cannot claim to have the Whole Truth, nor Nothing But the Truth;
3). We are in a deeply partisan situation with a federal election going on, and the supporters of these leaks are overwhelmingly Republican;
4). Even the possibility of foreign intervention in an election should concern you and concern you deeply. Your lack of interest in this matter is most telling.
A court of law isn't willing to make a determination of fact without the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The fact that you are, means your standards are lower. Whether they are too low, certainly I think so. History will decide who is right.