News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'. Parent comment

Re:Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut' by camiller on Monday October 17, 2016 @03:52PM (#12728963)
Sorry but wasn't the NYT shown to be colluding with the DNC to stack the deck against Sanders in the emails wikileaks published from the DNC hack?

https://medium.com/@Starkweather/new-york-times-edited-berni...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut' by snowwrestler on Monday October 17, 2016 @05:29PM (#12729953)
No.

EDIT: for context, if you go read the actual emails, what you see are totally bog-standard comments of a PR team reacting to a story once it posted, and again when the NYT updated it, as the NYT (and other papers) often do.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut' by camiller on Tuesday October 18, 2016 @09:06AM (#12733957)
Yes, but they updated it in a fashion to downplay potential misuse of the JVF in Clinton's favor.

Edit: for context "We were able to keep him from including more on the JVF, it has a mention in there, but between us and a conversation he had with Marc Elias he finally backed off from focusing too much on that."

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut' by snowwrestler on Tuesday October 18, 2016 @09:24AM (#12734079)
That was in the initial version of the story. As DWS says right in the email, the update added comments from Longabaugh.

This email chain is a total non-story. The NYTimes called the DNC for comment, and the DNC attempted to shape the story. That is basic PR 101.

We know the Sanders campaign did the same thing, because the story includes confidential information from his campaign, and comments from his surrogates. We just don't have Wikileaks access to the emails from his campaign (thank goodness).

[ Parent | on HN ]