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?"
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?
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.
Legality does not determine morality.
Motives matter.
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.
Except when you have no way to verify what leaked emails are real, which ones are manipulated, and which ones are completely fabricated, and you're simply trusting that a foreign power that's actively trying to manipulate the political process in this country is releasing *only* the truth and not performing any alterations to advance their own agenda.
"The press is mining the dirty work of Russian hackers for gossipy inside-beltway accounts."
I love how you accept the Russians are responsible.
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."
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.
Well, the GOP offices have been firebombed ("Nazi republicans get out"). Someone here on Slashdot was calling that a "Reichstag fire" (yeah, umm, so where are the riots over it? oh, right... the GOP doesn't stage those). People on the Democratic payroll (MoveOn, specifically) were responsible for staging the violence at Trump rallies and then blamed Sanders supporters for it. Oh, and there was a mysterious DC "robbery" (where nothing was taken) with the guy shot twice in the back in the middle of the night. Who was an insider that may have been responsible for some leaks. Don't worry! Fact checkers "debunked" that due to there being "no evidence" on the same day (investigate? why?). The killer has not been caught.
But we can ignore that because Russia? If Putin wanted to influence the elections, it's pretty clear that he could've just donated to the Clinton foundation like Qatar, Saudi Arabia and everyone else.
To date, the Clinton campaign has not once attacked the veracity of the emails.
Not. Even. Once.
They have bobbed, weaved, prevaricated, projected, and otherwise produced non-sequitur "answers" to the questions about the content. But not once have they said "well, that one there, that's false, we never said that." Instead we get tall tales of Russians hacking the DNC -with no evidence - just the Clinton campaign's say-so.
All attacks are upon the messenger(s) and not the facts. And it's amazing how these emails match up with reality.
That tells me a lot. It tells me that the emails are real, and that once Hillary assumes office, the heat is not going to be off. [grumpy cat]Good[/grumpy cat].
Karma is a bitch.
--
BMO
Motives can only be determined when someone has the full story and is not the only part of legal process either.
Either way, we are talking about things that are part of public record. Just because someone (HRC) doesn't/didn't want them to be part of public record and used a personal account to hide them doesn't mean they shouldn't be.
If HRC wouldn't have cheated; these records could've been obtained by FOIA request and would've happened in a real election or the stonewalling of the FOIA by the administration would've been a big talking point.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
What if the journalists believe that the stuff shouldn't be leaked at all, because it hurts "their team"? Most mainstream journalists are completely ignoring the Wikileaks posts not because of "personal and private stuff" but because it's damaging for Hillary. Scrubbing would just allow further ignoring of the truth.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
A leak now incurs the wrath of the Clinton Foundation. A leak next year may incur the wrath of the whole US executive branch.
Oh wait, same people...
Actually, I saw one on the news saying they'd seen some of their emails up there and then they waffled about non-specific "inaccuracies." They clearly said it was their email, but they weren't giving any specifics about what they believed was inaccurate.
So that tells me the DNC email was really leaked. I'd say it's a time to "trust but verify"--that is, don't blindly trust anything you read, but corroborate it yourself with other evidence.
Agreed, Putin shouldn't try to play cheap by appointing his own puppet instead of paying Clinton like everyone else is doing it. He isn't something special, same rules apply for all bribers. If he's outbid by Qatar, he shouldn't be mad, but instead raise his bid.
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.
Just because someone (HRC) doesn't/didn't want them to be part of public record and used a personal account to hide them doesn't mean they shouldn't be.
Hello? Why are you mixing up clinton's email server with messages from the DNC to which clinton was not even a party?
DNC email is not part of the public record.
There have been no "leaks" from clinton's email server.
I swear this mixing and matching of half-understood non-scandals practically defines the internet discussion about clinton. Its disheartening how much bullshit is out there and even worse, how often it gets upmodded.
"[...]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
Underlings on both sides have been caught doing nasty things. If you don't want to sound like a biased douche, present both.
Table-ized A.I.
Sure, show us the GOP funding people to cause riots at political rallies and we will. Until then, we have the DNC and Clinton's campaign directly paying people who shut down Trump's Chicago rally. One woman paid 11 days by Clinton's campaign before that rally.
So both are equally as bad as each other, if you ignore that the DNC itself is funding things and the GOP isn't. You also have to ignore that no Clinton rallies have been cancelled, but Trump rallies have been by paid protesters who attempted to frame Sanders.
Typical liberal "both sides are equally as bad" when caught red handed and with overwhelming evidence that they are not equally as bad.
The irony is that if Hillary actually did plot and commit a really sinister conspiracy, it would probably got lost among all the fake ones.
Re scene in ET where the alien hides among stuffed animals.
Table-ized A.I.
Reddit, which is now a better investigative source than the NYT, has discovered Zulema Rodrigues was paid by Clinton's campaign, according to public FEC records, and we have video of her taking credit for shutting down Trump's Chicago rally. In addition, the SAME WOMAN, was responsible for shutting down an Arizona freeway during another Trump rally.
No evidence, if you ignore public records, videos of the paid woman bragging about it, and records of her being a problem at multiple Trump rallies. At this point you have been so overwhelmed with evidence you sound like an idiot for denying it. I just find it absolutely funny Reddit has become a better source of journalism than the NYT, with all the references available to anyone.
Tablizer is obviously one of Clinton's paid posters, because you would have to be paid at this point to still be here claiming there is no evidence.
Honestly, if Hillary is so god damn good at rigging massive elections, murdering dozens of people, running vast criminal empires, all without anything but loony toon fringe conspiracies pointing a finger at her, she deserves to be president.
Hell, even Nixon wasn't good enough to pull that off.
In all seriousness it's amusing that people have been trying to destroy her and Bill for 30 years, and the fact that the only scandals people can find are flimsy and tiny as hell, or outright faked moon landing level of conspiracy theories really does show shes actually pretty darn clean.
Do you know that people on the Democratic payroll also initiated a crowdfunding campaign to replace the firebombed office in NC? Do you know that the target for this campaign had been reached in just 40 minutes?
No? I guessed so.
the violent rallies we now know to be staged
This is nonsense. The Trump supporters were still the people committing the violence. The only 'proof' there is would be that the group of this Foval guy baited some Trump supporters into becoming violent.
That does not mean that Foval's group actively incited violence (like Foval said in the video: "It doesn't take much to set these guys off.")
That also does not mean that all violence at Trump rallies originated from some deliberate attempt from Foval's group.
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. A sizable portion of Trump-supporters are still mean-spirited violent assholes. You don't get to pretend they are not and you don't get to claim that "we now know the violent rallies to be staged".