Unfortunately, on the other hand you want them to be 'neutral' and 'credible'.
I believe Wikileaks does a good job of maintaining the middle ground by providing both raw documents and context and analysis. Your suggestion that they are generating conspiracies does not stand up to analysis: by providing raw documents they do the opposite.
With regards to immediacy, Wikileaks has explained their processes in the past with regards to source validation. One of the most obvious attacks against the organization would be publishing false information through them to discredit them publicly. Therefore all information received must be carefully researched and validated, as well as anonymized, before publication.
Dumping all they had at once when they received it would at least appear to be less of an agenda. They aren't providing "raw" documents since they are doing it now drip by drip, again trying to rile up uninformed folks right before the election.
Personally, though, he lost credibility for me after how he ditched Domsheit-Burg talking like a crazed egomaniac after deceiving many into thinking he had more staff and protection for them than he really did. Now, he's an egomaniac and has a strong, political bias. Practically graduated to position of one of corporate media's talking heads. Edit to add: just with more muckracking!
I assume since many mainstream sources show a strong bias, they also lost credibility with you?
The difference is they're profit generating machines we all know is bullshit where Wikileaks claims to be an activist organization fighting to get the truth out to take down business and government corruption. Then gets really focused on one political party to benefit of another corrupt party. I definitely will call that out.
It's fine if they want to be just another biased, ego/profit-centric outlet. We'll just add them to list of sources, factor in bias, and try to determine truth. People will just have to stop treating it like it's trustworthy or an activist organization.
How does releasing information on one party and not the other invalidate their position as activists? No information on Republicans means WikiLeaks no longer cares about fighting corruption and increasing transparency? And that they're somehow profit driven because of that too?
Should they have looked for information on all of the detainees at guantanamo when they released the guantanamo files, just to avoid the possibility of perceived bias?
A consistent series of attacks focusing on the Left while the Right is doing lots of damage makes them activists against the Left specifically. Different than activists for civil rights or honest government/business.
" No information on Republicans means WikiLeaks no longer cares about fighting corruption and increasing transparency?"
It's odd that we see revelations and reports on both of them consistently from groups like The Guardian and The Intercept but not this activist.
"And that they're somehow profit driven because of that too?"
He was before that. Constantly fund-raising then charging people for little Assange parties. These days he seems to be driven by ego and/or hate of government. His leaks and reports in the old days were a mix of evil government and business.
"Should they have looked for information on all of the detainees at guantanamo when they released the guantanamo files"
Now you're just making stuff up. That's nothing like a supposedly neutral organization covering two, known-dirty candidates who are constantly pulling stunts.
If you perceive the Right or Left to be the greater threat given the information that you have, why do you have any obligation to report on them equally? IE how 75-100% of CNNs front page is anti-Trump stories on any given day.
> It's odd that we see revelations and reports on both of them consistently from groups like The Guardian and The Intercept but not this activist.
Why?
> Constantly fund-raising then charging people for little Assange parties.
Fundraising doesn't mean profit. 501c3s also fund raise. As I'm sure you and basically everyone else on this site is aware, running an org that's active in multiple countries over the course of a decade isn't free.
> His leaks and reports in the old days were a mix of evil government and business.
The current Podesta emails somehow aren't? Have you read them at all? For instance, the stories about Podesta's dealings in Russia [1].
This email [2] includes an attached legal bill regarding formation of Leonidio LLC. Is that not government and business corruption?
1. http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/how-hillarys-campaign-chief-hid-m... 2. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/13946
How do you know? Maybe Trump has a modicum of security on whatever systems uses.
Do you make the same claim about the women who accused Donald Trump of sexual assault the same day that leak was released? Or the person who released the "Grab her in the pussy" audio at that time? For sure they are biased, but everything they seem to release turns out to be real.
But they don't, as Assange has admitted himself.
They publish data they deem worthy of publishing.
How is that a question? It's true. Of course he can say that. Wikileaks is meddling in the US electoral process. That the US also does it in no way changes that simple fact. The fact that the US does something bad does not mean that some other organization suddenly didn't do the thing it did. That's what makes no sense.
I don't mean to excuse any of the terrible things the US has done, I'm just pointing out basic reality here.
And I applaud Ecuador for taking the high ground here. I hope the US learns something from that.
Oh really? Do you know the definition of a democracy? A democracy is simply a form of government that gives power to the people. It comes from Greek words "demos" meaning "the people" and "kratia" meaning power or authority. A democracy doesn't specify which people or even specifically what powers. It also doesn't say anything about about money or influence. Now is there too much money in US politics? Of course. Does extreme partisanship hinder progress? Absolutely. But none of these things mean that the US does not have a democracy. There might not always be a great choice of candidates but U.S citizens choose which least rotten of the bunch gets to represent them. No question about it. So yes that power is vested in the citizens. To state that the US is the least democratic of any democracy today is just absurd. So according to your statement the US lags behind Russia, Nigeria and Democratic Republic of Congo?
I think its odd that the OP simply saying he applauds the Ecuadorians efforts to distance themselves from Wikileaks elicited such a total condemnation from you.
USA is living a lie that hurts almost all its citizens on a daily basis, and there is nothing the people can do. USA might be a democracy but there is no power in the hands of the people anymore. The choice of continuing this corrupt, broken institution is what Hillary represents. Massive change that might break all kinds of stuff world wide because of the crazy that he is, is what Trump represents. I don't think anybody but the people benefitting directly want those two as candidates, but there is nothing anybody can do about it. The people of USA just have to take it, all while being lied to by the very people that should be working for them but obviously aren't: the media and the government.
Yeah, worst democracy in the world is probably on point, in my opinion.
Question: How can we (I live in the US) still be a democracy if there is no power in the hands of the people?
I think either the US has slowly become an oligarchy[1], or it has always been an oligarchy that was merely good at pretending to be a democratic republic. I would vote if I thought it would have an effect, but sadly our voting process is inscrutable. I, like many others, pray for a revolution here soon.
1. Edit: just found out Jimmy Carter apparently agrees with this: https://theintercept.com/2015/07/30/jimmy-carter-u-s-oligarc...
Obviously, the plebeians felt otherwise and either started a revolt or simply refused to participate in their corrupted system, until reforms were made.
It's the same pattern repeating itself throughout history, when a seemingly benevolent system becomes corrupted by refusing to protect its most vulnerable populace and uphold its rule of law.
Don't eschew your civic duty, though. Even if you feel your vote "does not make a difference", you empower those who will one day remove that right from you. You're not using it anyway, right?
I want real power. My political views are not represented. No single candidate could ever represent me, because my opinions are minorities in many ways. The things I care about are not the issues that the media is pushing.
A government that cared about me would find some way for me to be represented. Perhaps a multiparty system like France. Perhaps the ability to directly vote on a small number of issues, instead of being forced into picking a candidate that supports 20% of my ideas over a candidate that supports 8% of them.
Or how about a media that'll at least acknowledge severe fraud allegations?: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs
Both Clinton and Trump were nominated as Presidential candidates by the voting public through a democratic process. Voters will choose among Trump, Clinton, Stein, Johnson, and other candidates in the Presidential election on November 8th. If voters don't want to elect Trump or Clinton, they have other candidates they can vote for. The reality is that most people want either Trump or Clinton as President.
Can you remind me how Prime Ministers are chosen in your country? What voters choose them to be PM? How important is your national government relative to the national government in the US, domestically speaking? Are state and provincial governments as powerful as they are in the US? Do you elect all your state and local offices, like we do in the US?
The US has many problems, but "insufficiently democratic" is not one of them.
Is that actually the reality? My impression is that most people do not want either Trump nor Clinton but they want one a lot less than the other so they'll vote against that candidate rather than voting for one.
Nobody is choosing either Trump or Clinton. They are voting for the alternative against either Trump or Clinton.
You are correct that USAs leaders have much more power than the leaders of my country. I will give you that. Your elected officials are probably better power people than mine, but I think that my elected officials are probably much better people than yours.
That is not a compliment in favor of your country. Quite the contrary.
Do "money" or "corporations" get votes? Or are people persuaded to vote in ways you don't like by people with money? There's a big difference.
> You are correct that USAs leaders have much more power than the leaders of my country.
That's not what I mean. In domestic terms, the Presidency is a very weak office. In many respects, the President is a figurehead that mostly matters for foreign policy purposes.
And again: who decided your PM would be PM? Voters? Or was it an internal decision made by a party without voter input? How can you claim that the US is less democratic than that?
It's not a perfect system, either, but the PM has to be among those elected to office - it's entirely possible (though rare) for a party to win the election, and their candidate for PM to lose their seat (and thus be ineligible).
It does also offer a semblance of "honesty" or vested interest. There's an accountability - if you as the PM are not capable of running a platform or country that makes other members of your party electable, they can and will remove you. So, at least in theory, there's a feeling of representative power. Most party-based removals from positions have come directly from the people, unhappy with performance, and then groups of politicians saying "Yeah, we're out of a job if we follow you/keep down this road".
It does also have Survivor-like elements, for better, and worse.
But the candidate for PM is known by the public, so in a sense it's de facto voted for.
Just like in the US, to rephrase your last: "Who decided your President would be President? Voters? Or was it an internal decision by an electoral college who in some cases is not obligated to respect the wishes of those they represent? How can you claim that to be democratic?"
As someone who has lived substantial periods in both Australia and the US, I have a decent perspective.
You've also not address my points about state and local politics in the US, and the limited power of the Presidency in general that make the position not that all important to the working of the government.
Not in the US, this power is granted to the Electoral College.
> To state that the US is the least democratic of any democracy today is just absurd
Of course if you compare to extreme examples like Russia, Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the US is a heaven of democracy. Compared to most western countries, it falls behind.
Of course it does -- the people. Demos, not anthropos.
> But none of these things mean that the US does not have a democracy.
And here too, the words "least democratic", rather than e.g. "not democratic at all, in any sense, ever", were likely chosen for a reason.
> I think its odd that the OP simply saying he applauds the Ecuadorians efforts to distance themselves from Wikileaks elicited such a total condemnation from you.
I consider it obedience signalling in the face of totalitarianism. I'm fine with "total condemnation" of that. I actually expect it from anyone I wouldn't pity and fight.
The candidates are self-selected based on how much money they have plus connection with corrupt parties who operate on bribes from corporations, special interest groups, and rich people. The people get information on these candidates from highly-biased media that lie about other candidates to drum up ratings for advertising revenue while also run by people in capitalist class. Territories, phrasing of questions on ballet, and voter rights are used to filter a chunk of votes that may threaten status quo. They votes are often entered into machines that are easy to hack with consistent refusal to eliminate that risk. These votes determine which "electors," not Presidents, are decided. These electoral candidates were already chosen by prior, political parties. Depending on state law, those electors will then vote for candidate people voted for or vote against people's choice.
This total process is what many Americans call an election system where the "people" decide who runs the country. They're participating in a mass delusion. It's clear that the people have limited participation in the above process. The final choice isn't made by the people at all. Some democracy...
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/...
How can you say that with a straight face? Legal SuperPACs, campaign contributions, lobbying groups, the home of commercial 'PR' (propaganda) and the world's most highly litigious society. You guys are the least democratic of any self-titled democracy today. Wikileaks publishes information that enables people to make informed decisions. This is the original purpose of democracy. Chalk and cheese?
I also wonder also how you can say "Wikileaks is meddling in US political process" while admitting the US has made a global habit of meddling in others' affairs (including: direct political coup, arming rebel groups, placing puppets in power, supplying torture equipment and training, etc.). It makes no sense.