I mean, I guess the difference is that Hillary’s emails were made public by wiki leaks, so media are like “who cares, it’s already public” but this time, it’s not public
That’s one difference, but the timing is another difference. Hillary’s emails were reported on quickly and extensively, yet these leaks were suppressed for 3 weeks. It’s not like those news outlets reported that they had information, and didn’t provide details, but rather they reported nothing at all.
But the whole thing is bizarre. If someone actually wanted to get information out there, they wouldn’t have gone to those news outlets. There are other newspapers that would have actually published stories. So I’m not sure what to make of the thing.
Let’s not forget that both the DNC and RNC were hacked in 2016, but only DNC material was leaked.
Totally a coincidence that trump campaign gets hacked and that data is not released again.
Exactly
Another key difference is that the Trump administration charged Julian Assange for publishing leaked documents. In the past it was the leakers that would be prosecuted, but publishers weren’t because of the chilling effect on free press that would cause. Now we’re seeing that chilling effect in action.
Julian Assange had other things going on too. Like editing the stuff to make it as harmful as possible to the US. It would be very hard to make that case against the NYT.
No it wouldn’t with the new precedent and the espionage act. The espionage act only has to show that they did the action of publishing the leak. They don’t have to prove any sort of intent.
The thing is Assange’s charges were very much in the grey area. Him running around the world and going straight Russian mouthpiece covered any discussion of intent. As did his handling of the actual documents.
Intent clearly still plays a part. Because NYT, Guardian, and Der Speigel all published documents from Chelsea Manning as well. And yet only the guy who was working with the Russians got charged with espionage.
In fact there’s been several modern cases of leaking to the press, and the press have yet to be charged. Even when they refuse to name their source under subpoena. The fact is they are protected by first amendment protections. Assange breached those protections by clearly working for hostile foreign actors.
Intent can play a part in the attorneys discretion to bring forth the case. But the espionage act does not require intent.
Right so you clearly didn’t read a damn thing. You’re just going to stick to that in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
“At least three news outlets were leaked confidential material from inside the Donald Trump campaign […] So far, each has refused to reveal any details about what they received.”
I kind of got the impression that AP was indicating they wouldn’t keep silent (after verifying the materials).
The discussion in the comments here is illuminating, though. I knew Wikileaks was a Russian mouthpiece, but I didn’t realize the website offered cover for reporting of other news agencies, so they could avoid legal liability for releasing things.
Would not be surprised if a random site spun up somewhere with these documents on them soon.It’s time the leakers start releasing this information on the open Web if it the journalists don’t publish it
They’re not journalists. They’re public relations.
By not printing any of it, they just create a talking point that there was nothing embarrassing to print. Thanks. That really helps us. Assholes.
Bigger question to me is why haven’t the hackers just uploaded the details to like pastebin or some other neutral data upload site ? That seems to have been what was done in the past and in turn given the media free reign to share the info
Someone has to publish and put it into the public domain like Wikileaks did.
so what’s stopping “someone”? there are infinity minus one randos on the internet willing to host juicy hot leaks for whatever ulterior motives.
What happened to Julian Assange is what’s stopping someone. And he wasn’t even in the US.
Julian assange got off Scot free in the end
He spent over a decade imprisoned and pled guilty to something that’s clearly first amendment protected activity, I wouldn’t call that Scot free.
“First amendment”… ? So you think it’s fine to release information you know will lead to murder of innocent people, are warned repeatedly, you do it anyway, and that’s all fine.
And this is to say nothing of the women who credibly claim he raped them.
And this is where you’re supposed to link to a specific instance of anyone who got murdered due to the leaks, because that didn’t happen, he redacted the files to avoid this.
As for the ghosting charge, I agree he should’ve stood trial in Sweden for that.
I mean in the past hackers posted a lot of data online without getting caught…like the Ashley Madison hack for example. You don’t have to use a middleman journalist to post it
So, like Assange in the early days and not the unkempt vagrant we see at the end.
There is a difference between a “leak” and a “hack”… I think in this case, they say “leak” because it was someone from Trump’s team who released the info… maybe they don’t feel they can secure their anonymity if they post it directly online
Cowards. The lot of them.
“Leaks” to news outlets are how campaigns get shit published without paying for advertising.
that is because almost all owners of major news outlets are trump supporters
It’s more probable that the DOJ told them to STFU, and their lawyers thought that was a good idea.
I haven’t read anything reporting that. Do you have some news source that I don’t? Also, they would have been complete fools to ask the feds when they don’t need the feds’ permission to publish things.
Really? They’re fine with releasing HRC’s emails but draw the line when it comes the the Republican campaign?
The article says this too:
Their decisions stand in marked contrast to the 2016 presidential campaign, when a Russian hack exposed emails to and from Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta.
So why would the DOJ tell them to keep quiet?
So why would the DOJ tell them to keep quiet?
Because, when the FBI investigates a crime, in this case a computer crime, they advise the witness, in this case the media, to keep everything confidential. They do this to not compromise their investigation.
And, media lawyers know that the use of stolen material exposes them to charges and law suits.
That didn’t seem to matter to them much in previous incidents.
These were leaked, it says they may have come from a hack, so the “crime” portion is even less defined than the previous releases like Clinton’s, which absolutely came from a hack but nobody seemed to care.
Wikileaks published first. Then US media wrote a story about their story.
I wonder what happened to the guy that published those emails.
And why would self respecting journalists listen to them about this? Journalists aren’t supposed to let themselves just get strong armed by governments who don’t want them talking about certain things.
I think real journalists are in incredibly short supply, along with agencies willing to print what should be said. Think of all the ridiculous titles, pointless exaggeration, opinion, clickbait, and all the rest in popular media. Couple that with right wing billionaire media owners and getting the unvarnished truth becomes the exception and not the rule.
Literally none of the emails you just referenced were released by media outlets.
From the first link: “A previously secret trove of emails released Tuesday by the House Oversight Committee…”
From the second link: “The Florida Supreme Court ordered the release of 528 pages of emails sent between partisan political consultants and state officials…”
From the third link: “The email exchange between GSA officials and Harrison is one of more than 100 pages of emails and documents newly released by the GSA…”
The Clinton campaign emails were also published by Wikileaks. Once they were published, the media reported on them, but they had no hand in releasing them.
https://www.webfx.com/blog/internet/the-6-companies-that-own-almost-all-media-infographic/
It’s literally 6 dudes controlling all of it
I used to post this but the wise army of keyboard warriors thought it was a conspiracy theory :)
Definitely not some looney theory of yours but this infographic is outdated.
I specifically notice the Time Warner issue. Sold off by ATT in ‘22
Different company now. Warner Bros. Discovery who’s CEO is currently David Zaslov.
Obligatory "this is extremely dangerous to our democracy "
Well duh, you think the major media companies that own like 99% of all local news stations and constantly run fear mongering stories and give Republicans soft ball questions and a platform to speak on are really going to leak into against Trump?
Fucking Sinclair
Send it to me. I’ll publish it. Problem solved.
Trump is financially advantageous. Our current economic model incentivizes outrage because it fuels engagement.
Trump is a money maker. That is why he is constantly in the spotlight. People are drawn to oddities and weirdos so they take full advantage and keep him in the spotlight by any means necessary. They won’t retire him until he’s dead. And even then, who knows.
Huh. The same ButterEmailz corporate media put their thumb on the scales, again?
Weird. I keep hearing about this alleged “liberal media”. Just where in the fuck is this supposed liberal media, anyway?
That’s the trick.
For everyone complaining about these not being published: This is why Wikileaks was a net good.
Wikileaks selectively leaked material helping Trump get elected giving us the mess we are in now. So I beg to differ.
Well, that’s a bit of a misrepresentation; they published documents that hurt Hillary Clinton while declining to publish documents from the Russian government. But even if they had published both sets of documents, the effect on the election would have been the same. It’s not as though they declined to publish documents on Trump. Either way, if you’re opposed to Hillary Clinton’s campaign emails being leaked, I have to assume that you’re equally opposed to the Trump campaign’s emails being leaked, and you’re glad that these news outlets are not releasing the information.
No, you made a pretty big assumption. I dont care that Hillarys emails were leaked and I would have liked Trumps emails to be leaked aswell.
My biggest issue with wikileaks was that they exposed the names of people spying for the US in enemy countries which put their lives in danger. All while censoring the names of Russian operatives in the Russian leaks.
OK, but that’s not what you said. You said that, “Wikileaks selectively leaked material helping Trump get elected giving us the mess we are in now.” So if you weren’t complaining about the Podesta emails, what were you referring to that helped Trump get elected?
I think we can agree that having an unbiased publisher who is willing to report on state secrets that can negatively affect society is truly important. I think the debate is whether what WikiLeaks morphed into over the years qualifies as that.
Post 2016, I think it would be hard to argue that WikiLeaks is anything but a propaganda arm of certain state governments.
You could also argue that being indicted by the Justice Department in 2012 forced Assange to seek the favor of governments who weren’t aligned with U.S. interests. It’s certainly a betrayal of Wikileaks founding principles that it passed in those Russian documents in 2017, but if I were already the target of the U.S. government, I probably wouldn’t want to piss off the Russian government as well. But again, that’s why I said it was a net positive, not a positive.
Also, please don’t take my defense of Assange against the U.S. government as a defense of Assange as a man. Just because I didn’t want to see him in a U.S. prison, doesn’t mean I didn’t want to see him in a Swedish prison.
You could also argue that being indicted by the Justice Department in 2012 forced Assange to seek the favor of governments who weren’t aligned with U.S. interests. It’s certainly a betrayal of Wikileaks founding principles that it passed in those Russian documents in 2017, but if I were already the target of the U.S. government, I probably wouldn’t want to piss off the Russian government as well.
That’s a fair point, however I would like to point out that being indicted by the government you’re leaking information against is a foreseeable conclusion. The thing that made WikiLeaks credible to begin with was their founding principles, abandoning those principles is also abandoning your credibility.
Also, please don’t take my defense of Assange against the U.S. government as a defense of Assange as a man. Just because I didn’t want to see him in a U.S. prison, doesn’t mean I didn’t want to see him in a Swedish prison.
I’m in the same boat, I don’t think anyone should go to jail for journalism. However, Assange towards his later years in the embassy had definitely been engaging in actions I would be hard pressed to label as journalism.
I still don’t think he should be in jail, but if he were still running WikiLeaks today I don’t know if it would still be a net positive. That’s depending on your geopolitical outlook though.
That’s a fair point, however I would like to point out that being indicted by the government you’re leaking information against is a foreseeable conclusion.
Well, that’s the thing, though; Wikileaks actually never leaked anything, they just published the leaks. When the Gaurdian published the Snowden leaks, Snowden immediately became a target of prosecution, but the journalists who worked on the story were never prosecuted. Even as hostile as the Obama administration was towards the press, they wouldn’t dare prosecute journalists for publishing a story. But it wasn’t just Chelsea Manning that they went after for the 2010 Afghan War leaks, it was Assange and Wikileaks itself. You can argue it was because they weren’t a traditional press group, but realistically, it was because the government could get away with it.
Assange personally has always seemed like a piece of shit, and politically, he has definitely gone off the deep end in the last 8 years or so, but then again, 7 years a single embassy room followed by 5 years in prison is probably going to mess with your brain. I wish Wikileaks had moved on without him, and I agree that he wasn’t operating from a neutral position anymore, but without a replacement emerging, I think we’d be better off having it than having nothing.
They can only be a net good if they publish without editorial comment and without discrimination.
But that also runs the risk of becoming the world clearinghouse for faked documents and such.
Probably nothing worth really reporting on I bet. They know better than to put their incriminating shit in an email.
That assumes some level of competence. That is not a bet I would take.
https://lemmy.ml/post/19054911
This post is what I was thinking of.
I’m familiar. But I don’t think that Trump’s campaign is particularly competent or well managed. The Heritage Foundation is another matter. If Trump was well managed, he wouldn’t have Vance as a VP nominee, given that Vance was (is) underwater in his own state.
No, I think it’s the opposite……
Which part of trumps agenda is hidden? I mean he puts it ALL on display and his supporters don’t give a fuck.
I would bet that there’s nothing there because everyone already knows, and people have already decided whether they give a shit or not
Trump’s popularity decline appears to have coincided in part with awareness of Project 2025. A small number of low-information voters may have liked Trump, but not really paid attention to what he stands for, and are now seeing it. So to that end, making everything public might help move even more voters.
In all seriousness, I’ve worked with people that supported Trump and genuinely had no idea where he stood on a lot of things. Like, I worked with a black man that genuinely believed that Trump was the least-racist president ever.
I just visited Graceland, the number of black folks that wanted to vote for trump was terrifying.
They had some really valid complaints about the Democrats, but they had no idea of what trump was, they just knew that the democrats weren’t solving their problems.
Was there any incriminating shit in Hillary’s mails?
Yeah, which is exact why Trump sent her to prison as he promised!
Actually, the DNC email hack was pretty back for democrats. Not cause of anything incriminating, but for proving to the Bernie fans that the DNC really was working against him. This led to many of them not voting, boycott voting, or switching to Trump’s side.
Associated Press - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Associated Press:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://apnews.com/article/trump-vance-leak-media-wikileaks-e30bdccbdd4abc9506735408cdc9bf7b?
It has become quite evident that much of the main stream media is for trump
A Trump presidency is good for ratings and that’s all they care about
That’s a high-school level analysis.
The reality is that the media companies are small parts of much larger organizations that will benefit from Trump’s impact on worker rights, taxation, home ownership, environmental regulation, and more.
If Fox News team at a net loss of 2000%, it would still be worth it to Murdoch.
NBC is owned by Comcast, whose major shakers include JP Morgan, Vanguard, and more.
Or they didn’t want to give him persecution fodder so he can say the election is invalid because he was hacked
Oh wait… He is already saying that
Mainstream media is for drama. And Trump is a drama machine.
The circus gets more clicks than policy debate
Ironically becoming the fake news sources Trump has been screaming about since 2016.
You mean the ones that did publish leaked information on Hillary?
Just look at who they are owned by. People just as weird as he is. Not the good weird though. The nasty kind.
