Think about it like a data project at a company (because that's my job, heh). There's this weird, but accurate, assumption that the first to report something is assumed true, and anything that comes later either has to conform to that or is presumed to be wildly inaccurate.

It's not so much the risk that the media buries it, I was incorrect in framing it that way. The bigger risk is that the media spins and reports it. Remember, they still have the majority of the eyes and ears.

Snowden did it, but note that it involved foreign media. It's probably easier to get foreign media involved in an international spying story than it would be to get someone to take up the US democratic primary and campaign finance laws (which everyone else in the world already thinks is ridiculous). I'm not saying it can't be done, or that it shouldn't be done or whatever else - but I do think it's a complex decision.

The media is spinning it and reporting it now. I'm fine with the release, I'm not fine with essentially doxxing all the donors.

Also, Assange is currently putting his own spin on it implying the DNC staffer that died was murdered. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

> implying the DNC staffer that died was murdered.

The DNC staffer that died _was murdered_. That's exactly what happened. I think what you mean is they're implying motive and conspiracy.

A $20k reward might clear the air either way.

>I think what you mean is they're implying motive and conspiracy.

Yes, thanks for correcting that.

Because the DNC leaks implicated a lot of reporters who Wikileaks would have to work with to get this story out.

Even if we generously interpret the "whole lot of reporters", the implication here is that they were left with no reporters to work with. That's absurd. There are many, many reporters, and even many credible reporters. It would not have been difficult to find non-implicated reporters that could deliver this with an impact.

You're acting as if there is a small group of reporters who, if compromised, make it impossible for Wikileaks to be responsible.

I agree with this. There is no vast media conspiracy. If nothing else, Fox would be all over it, as would the tabloid (most of these days) media. There's no honor among thieves.

I'm not sure an organization as biased as Fox News would improve the credibility of the leaks by any measurable amount.

You don't give the enemy a heads up. The fact the media is now an enemy is a nightmare in and of itself.

That's the things seen and unseen fallacy. Suppose some parts were buried, you wouldn't know of them.