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?
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.
...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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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
Actually there are quite a few DKIM signatures on there, though those sometimes get broken for irrelevant reasons.
Furthermore, some of them can (and have) been corroborated based on independent evidence.
The best way to avoid being manipulated is to verify things yourself, though. Don't believe someone when they says the emails say this or that, go read them for yourself. Go follow the links in the investigations.
Think for yourself, don't let reporters do your thinking for you.
I don't even ask you to trust me. I'd much rather you investigate and verify everything on your own.
Any programmer with python can EASILY VERIFY THEY ARE REAL. http://dailycaller.com/2016/10...
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.
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.
"[...]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
Actually...Brazille has been claiming that the emails were doctored. Such accusations are only going to gather steam as they slowly realize it's the only defense they have.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
But someone has already examined the DKIM hashes on many of the key emails and verified their authenticity and integrity:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10...
So, they're real. And the contents of them would've destroyed any other candidate...which is why the near-uniform blackout amongst the mainstream news media over them.
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.
Tuesday Lawrence Lessig issued a comment
Poor guy. Who the hell calls their kid "Tuesday"?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
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
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.
You do realize that the recent data dump was not of the emails on Clinton's server, right? They were on Podesta's person Gmail account, so even if we had every last email that ever existed on that server—no matter how trivial—you wouldn't be able to confirm the authenticity of this leak (of course with the exception of anything he sent to that server, but that hasn't been what's featured so far).
The rest of the conspiracy theory stuff just isn't worth getting into a pointless internet argument over. Nothing I say will sway you from thinking she's "Crooked Hillary," and nothing you say will convince me she actually did anything with malice. I do object to your logic that "all we can do is assume they are real," but to each his own.