Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 80556]

When they didn't redact the names of locals in Afghanistan that collaborated with American forces Amnesty International objected. Wikileaks said that redacting all that information would be very time consuming and asked AI if they would do it. Not wanting to be party to any number of crimes, AI said no, and Assange said that he wouldn't waste his time with people who only wanted to "cover their own asses." In a delicious irony, these pricks don't care about collateral damage.

Man, I didn't remember this. Fucking assholes.

I feel like there is some beautiful irony in watching people in here who have been all but demanding Clinton's head over a nothing e-mail "scandal" now gleefully shifting through actual data and emails that were stolen by fucking Russians.

You are not kidding, there's some hypocrisy here.

 

[Lothars]

There is zero proof that Bernie's campaign was paying people to astroturf. This is pure misinformation.

From the amount of people on the internet that was spreading misinformation about everyone but Bernie until very recently says the opposite heck there are still ones even on here that seem like they are. It is more like everyone does it.

 

[Alucrid]

I'm not American so the term donors seems an awful lot like a bribe no?

oh jesus. did i just bribe the SPCA?

 

[Peter Ian Staker]

Just saw this one. Not surprised since all candidates seem to do it. Wonder how many shills (Hillary or otherwise) are lurking about?

Well that explains all the silly Hillary avatars.
I wish someone would pay me to post on GAF.

 

[GYODX]

From the amount of people on the internet that was spreading misinformation about everyone but Bernie until very recently says the opposite heck there are still ones even on here that seem like they are. It is more like everyone does it.

So zero proof. Meanwhile^

 

[blame space]

Well that explains all the silly Hillary avatars.
I wish someone would pay me to post on GAF.

anybody who you recognize on a forum as large as GAF is on someone's payroll for one thing or another.

 

[Axiology]

From the amount of people on the internet that was spreading misinformation about everyone but Bernie until very recently says the opposite heck there are still ones even on here that seem like they are. It is more like everyone does it.

Really? From what I've seen, 19 out of 20 GAFers are deep, deep in the Clinton camp.

 

[Volimar]

anybody who you recognize on a forum as large as GAF is on someone's payroll for one thing or another.

blame space is subsidized by the Quaalude industry.

 

[stonesak]

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808

Politico vetting stories through the DNC before running them? Obviously highly unethical, but are there any actual rules against this?

 

[BlastProcessing]

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808

Politico vetting stories through the DNC before running them? Obviously highly unethical, but are there any actual rules against this?

How do you think reporters get sources?

 

[Media]

People are acting like this isn't how political operatives on all sides of the political spectrum in every single democracy on Earth do their work.

This is democracy in action, people. It's dirty and disillusioning, but it's also the status quo. You saw a tiny slice of the sausage being made, and you're acting like it's somehow unique to Hillary.

If you think that Bernie or Trump or Obama don't also have people like this on the payroll then you need to do some reading.

Listening to Bernie kids trying to zing Clinton on political ethics is like listening to GG try to zing Kotaku on journalistic ethics. You just started caring about this stuff a couple of months ago, there's a lot you still have to learn.

This. 100% certain that RNC leaks would be similar.

And what so damaging about 'pushing Trump as dangerous and divisive' when RNC had entire speeches literally calling Hilary the Devil? I mean, it's not like the other side isn't guilty of 'trying to make their opposition look bad' or anything.

 

[Matt]

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808

Politico vetting stories through the DNC before running them? Obviously highly unethical, but are there any actual rules against this?

Umm, not unethical in the least. How do you think reporters get quotes and fact check stories?

 

[LiK]

Kind of disgusting that Wikileaks just dumped a bunch of credit card numbers of Democratic donors.

seriously? wtf

 

[davepoobond]

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808

Politico vetting stories through the DNC before running them? Obviously highly unethical, but are there any actual rules against this?

why would you think its unethical to fact check

 

[stonesak]

How do you think reporters get sources?

I don't think journalists run their whole article past each source before running it. At least, I thought that was considered unethical. I'm no journalist, though, I could be wrong.

 

[BigJonsson]

I don't think journalists run their whole article past each source before running it. At least, I thought that was considered unethical. I'm no journalist, though, I could be wrong.

You should give them the chance to comment before you run it

 

[Matt]

I don't think journalists run their whole article past each source before running it. At least, I thought that was considered unethical. I'm no journalist, though, I could be wrong.

They can, there is nothing unethical about it.

 

[Azzanadra]

That religious stuff makes me faceplam. The fact that someone even suggested that shows just how tragically America is still ingrained in religion, no godless man may sit the oval office.

 

[Axiology]

I don't think journalists run their whole article past each source before running it. At least, I thought that was considered unethical. I'm no journalist, though, I could be wrong.

Also, the presentation of the e-mail doesn't seem like a fact-check, it seems more so like they're trying to make sure the article's cool with the Clinton camp. To be fair, no matter what the purpose was the correspondence is very casual, so it's hard to say one way or the other, but there's definitely an uncomfortably short distance between "let me know if you see anything that's missing" and how it would look like if they were actually negotiating the narrative.

I'm not making this out to be some big thing, though.

 

[Matt]

Also, the presentation of the e-mail doesn't seem like a fact-check, it seems more so like they're trying to make sure the article's cool with the Clinton camp. To be fair, no matter what the purpose was the correspondence is very casual, so it's hard to say one way or the other, but there's definitely an uncomfortably short distance between "let me know if you see anything that's missing" and how it would look like if they were actually negotiating the narrative.

I'm not making this out to be some big thing, though.

The style of that email is completely normal.

 

[Lothars]

Really? From what I've seen, 19 out of 20 GAFers are deep, deep in the Clinton camp.

I wasn't even referring to GAF and I wouldn't be surprised to see paid people shilling for each campaign pretty much every part of the internet. I am positive it's every camp though not limited to one.

 

[Steel]

That religious stuff makes me faceplam. The fact that someone even suggested that shows just how tragically America is still ingrained in religion, no godless man may sit the oval office.

Well, yeah. It's definitely a problem with the voting base. It was a huge deal when the first catholic made the office. Think about that.

 

[BlastProcessing]

I don't think journalists run their whole article past each source before running it. At least, I thought that was considered unethical. I'm no journalist, though, I could be wrong.

It's a pretty common step for fact checking. Journalists need to generate goodwill, it's how they cultivate sources.

You don't get Deepthroat out of the blue. Woodward spent years working with Felt trading favors and goodwill before he became the Watergate source. Good journalist know how to balance placating sources with reporting the stories that they feel are vital.

That religious stuff makes me faceplam. The fact that someone even suggested that shows just how tragically America is still ingrained in religion, no godless man may sit the oval office.

I am an Atheist and I would still question whether or not my party should nominate an atheist without at least having it litigated by my primary voters. You just don't want that dropping out of the blue during the General.

 

[GaimeGuy]

The fact that these are called "Hillary Leaks" when they're hacks of the DNC proves the intent of the originators.

This isn't about an information dump - it's a coordinated attack as part of a comprehensive political strategy.

 

[pigeon]

Also, the presentation of the e-mail doesn't seem like a fact-check, it seems more so like they're trying to make sure the article's cool with the Clinton camp. To be fair, no matter what the purpose was the correspondence is very casual, so it's hard to say one way or the other, but there's definitely an uncomfortably short distance between "let me know if you see anything that's missing" and how it would look like if they were actually negotiating the narrative.

I'm not making this out to be some big thing, though.

You are misreading the thread. The person saying "let me know if you see anything that's missing" is Paustenbach, the DNC press secretary, who has a comment in the piece.

He is absolutely negotiating the narrative in the sense that he's asking somebody else at the DNC to make sure he's accurately giving the reporter the DNC's position on the story. But it's obviously not unethical for the press secretary to ask another DNC employee if they are giving the right statement to the press, I mean, duh. That is literally his job.

The reporter is not on the thread at all, he just sent the original email that was forwarded and asked for any other comments.

 

[DietRob]

Wikileaks are assholes for this. I donate so do I need to be worried about my personal info being out in the wild now?

 

[opticalmace]

Wikileaks are assholes for this. I donate so do I need to be worried about my personal info being out in the wild now?

Probably? Go to the site and search for your name I guess.

 

[DietRob]

The fact that these are called "Hillary Leaks" when they're hacks of the DNC proves the intent of the originators.

This isn't about an information dump - it's a coordinated attack as part of a comprehensive political strategy.

Absolutely. The average American mind will tie this to her completely unrelated email scandal.

Probably? Go to the site and search for your name I guess.

Yea I guess I should. I didn't want to go to the site and dig around and use information obtained illegally by Russian hackers though.

 

[opticalmace]

Absolutely. The average American mind will tie this to her completely unrelated email scandal.



Yea I guess I should. I didn't want to go to the site and dig around and use information obtained illegally by Russian hackers though.

Well you should probably find out if your CC number is out there..... or at least I would.

 

[MIMIC]

Lots of people in this thread say that it's common for journalists to run their stories past sources, yet The Washington Post says that they discourage it, a reporter from the Washington Post says that they are "one of a very few" who does it, and a Google search on the policy reveals that the practice is highly discouraged in the field of journalism.

Misinformation is dangerous.

Also, the presentation of the e-mail doesn't seem like a fact-check, it seems more so like they're trying to make sure the article's cool with the Clinton camp. To be fair, no matter what the purpose was the correspondence is very casual, so it's hard to say one way or the other, but there's definitely an uncomfortably short distance between "let me know if you see anything that's missing" and how it would look like if they were actually negotiating the narrative.

I'm not making this out to be some big thing, though.

Everyone who has written about the agreement has expressed the same sentiment. You're not crazy.

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

The fact that these are called "Hillary Leaks" when they're hacks of the DNC proves the intent of the originators.

This isn't about an information dump - it's a coordinated attack as part of a comprehensive political strategy.

Pretty much. Wikileaks seems to be pretty anti-clinton at this point.

 

[N4Us]

 

[MIMIC]

welp

 

[stonesak]

That's awesome. DC is so clueless when it comes to cybersecurity. Russia probably has our nuke codes.

 

[TyrantII]

The fact that these are called "Hillary Leaks" when they're hacks of the DNC proves the intent of the originators.

This isn't about an information dump - it's a coordinated attack as part of a comprehensive political strategy.

I wouldn't be surprised if many are manufactured as well to influence perception.

The intelligence community has already said that Russia is looking to influence the election. And there's no real way to confirm these are all legitimate. Leak a bunch, throw in some needles that serve your interests, sit back and let online communities spread the FUD.

 

[Axiology]

 

[Ocelott]

These leaks have truly opened my eyes.

 

[disastermouse]

Wikileaks is anti-American and they don't give a shit about American citizens. They only care about damaging America.

"The rebellion is anti-Empire and they don't give a shit about Imperial citizens. They only care about damaging the Empire."

- Palpatine

 

[disastermouse]

Really? From what I've seen, 19 out of 20 GAFers are deep, deep in the Clinton camp.

This. There are people in the PoliGAF thread cooing over how cute Tim Kaine is. Really.

 

[Ocelott]

They have gaf on lock. It's so ridiculous here.

You are not lying. Hilary is so beloved here is ridiculous. I have a feeling this will hurt the DNC hard as hell.

 

[Oddish1]

So has anyone found anything incriminating yet? Besides the DNC's shameful cybersecurity there doesn't actually seem to be anything all that bad in here.

 

[Sanjuro]

This. There are people in the PoliGAF thread cooing over how cute Tim Kaine is. Really.

Bill Murray's brother is hot as fuck.

 

[Velcro Fly]

So has anyone found anything incriminating yet? Besides the DNC's shameful cybersecurity there doesn't actually seem to be anything all that bad in here.

doesn't matter. the people that have been shouting conspiracy for months are now validated.

 

[DICKS AHOY]

Pffft ahahaha.

 

[Oddish1]

doesn't matter. the people that have been shouting conspiracy for months are now validated.

But they're not! There's nothing in here! Why did wikileaks even bother with hackers if they could've just released a tech manual and labelled it "Hillary Clinton's Secret Murder Files of Corruption" since these people would've believed it just as easily?!

 

[NobleXenon]

The fact that these are called "Hillary Leaks" when they're hacks of the DNC proves the intent of the originators.

This isn't about an information dump - it's a coordinated attack as part of a comprehensive political strategy.

I'm thinking of the same thing; however, that means they are helping Trump, correct? Trump is the exact opposite of a libertarian, so why are they doing this?

 

[Log4Girlz]

Get your email act together Hillary, goddamn

 

[disastermouse]

Who sends SSN and credit card info in an email?

Our friends at the DNC. Their whole argument for Hillary is competence. Let that sink in.

You are not lying. Hilary is so beloved here is ridiculous. I have a feeling this will hurt the DNC hard as hell.

It should but you're already seeing neoliberal ex-Red-baiting.

It doesn't matter if these leaks are connected to the email scandal - the narrative is starting to become, 'She's vindictive, doesn't play fair, lies, and is frankly incompetent.' Why? She tried to 'wing it' with State Dept. info for the sole purpose of secrecy and now her party is showing that they don't even know not to disclose personal info over email. More incompetence, arrogance, unfair play, and demonstrable truth that she and the DNC have been insincere in stating that the DNC wasn't putting their thumb on the scales.

 

[Velcro Fly]

But they're not! There's nothing in here! Why did wikileaks even bother with hackers if they could've just released a tech manual and labelled it "Hillary Clinton's Secret Murder Files of Corruption" since these people would've believed it just as easily?!

i know that. many other people know that. but it doesn't fit the narrative/world view of some people so it gets brushed aside. people don't care about the issues. they care about being right and feeling good about that.

Bernie needs to come out at the DNC and breathe absolute fire on Donald Trump or this is going to linger and be ugly.

 

[Mr. X]

Working to swing things to Trump is scary. Even these emails have nothing as repulsive as Repubs said publically. I didn't think people this boring and safe actually existed.

If the Repub emails leak, I can't imagine the things said.