> I think it's impressive that the media made you think he was the one responsible for that narrative, instead of them.

I hold a similar opinion to the op, and don't really see how there's any narrative being formed. WikiLeaks own tweets and actions are concerning enough on their own.

> #PanamaPapers Putin attack was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by USAID & Soros.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717458064324964352

> The US OCCRP can do good work, but for the US govt to directly fund the #PanamaPapers attack on Putin seriously undermines its integrity.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717459700367790080

I read a fair bit about the Panama Papers at the time and never came away feeling like the focus was on Putin - the main thread was wealthy tax evaders across the globe. The casual mention of Soros instantly sends up alarm bells for me, as he's been a favorite punching bag of the right since the Glenn Beck days.

Later, there was the whole process of releasing the DNC emails in batches week by week close to election time - this felt like deliberate social engineering to me.

And finally, more recently there have been the private messages on twitter between Don Jr. and the WikiLeaks that came out - the way WikiLeaks asked for Trump's tax returns so they could look less partisan, the way they were giving suggestions, that they were communicating to begin with.

There's other bits and pieces that I put less stock in - Assange's show on RT, word that they were offered Russian gov docs and turned them down, etc. But the overall tone and feel has changed a lot since 2010. Hell, you can look through their feed about a week back and they're talking about Clinton's emails and the "deep state".

> Hell, you can look through their feed about a week back and they're talking about Clinton's emails and the "deep state".

Because this is a topic worth discussing.

> But the overall tone and feel has changed a lot since 2010.

Many people think this is because Wikileaks no longer controls their Twitter/Website.

Well that skews things a little bit then. If the Twitter account is not theirs and everybody is looking at it, why haven't they come forward saying: "oh, hey, so, the Twitter account? We don't own it anymore..."

If I'm remembering right, he leaked in exact timely order to help a political cause. It was almost if he was a puppet where someone was ordering him "ok, I want you to leak information X now". However I'm not sure if he did all these in anticipation for political pardon or because if he suspected that Clinton will seek to extradite him more aggressively.

Ya we’re still waiting on Russian docs he promised few years back.

I published my own list on reddit a while ago of the reasons.

And not a single media mention, the entire change in perception was either through Wikileaks’ actions and words, entirely through reading mostly their own Twitter.

Edit, found it:

Some of the reasons why I don't like WikiLeaks:

1. Their cooperation with Roger Stone: "Well, it could be any number of things. I actually have communicated with Assange. I believe the next tranche of his documents pertain to the Clinton Foundation but there’s no telling what the October surprise may be."

2. "Most of Wikileaks' critics have 3 (((brackets around their names))) & have black-rim glasses. Bizarre. Tribalist symbol for establishment climbers?"

3. Fueling the whole utterly bizarre 'spirit cooking' thing. The world's most pre-eminent performance artist invites the brother of the campaign manager of a presidential candidate for dinner? I'm sure that the degrees of separation to fucking Trump are shorter than that, but no, Hillary is literally the devil. And the whole 'election is rigged' thing with "Trump won't be allowed to win the election"

4. Calling out the Clinton Foundation for receiving money from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is one of the world's wealthiest countries, and the Clinton Foundation is one of the world's more pre-eminent charities. They have many other donors and Saudi money goes many other places. And the Saudi royal family numbers in the tens of thousands. Sure, some of them will be involved with ISIS. But seriously.

5. "WikiLeaks offers award for #LabourLeaks. Wikileaks offers £20,000 reward for #LabourLeaks with information on how the Labour Party’s top officials have attempted to stop Jeremy Corbyn becoming and staying on as leader." Any chance of a reward for information pertaining to Trump or Russia? I didn't think so.

6. The RT/WikiLeaks connection

7. Leaking Clinton library records. The chilling effect here is insane.

8. Hitchens, back in 2010: "The WikiLeaks founder is an unscrupulous megalomaniac with a political agenda."

Almost entirely WikiLeaks themselves, posted before the election of Trump even, no colouring in of my opinion by the lamestream media.

Don't forget Julian's winks towards the Seth Rich conspiracy theories. Absolutely disgusting.

what were they?

(or better: do you have a link?)

Perfect. thank you.

> 2. "Most of Wikileaks' critics have 3 (((brackets around their names))) & have black-rim glasses. Bizarre. Tribalist symbol for establishment climbers?"

I'm confused, isn't the (((3 brackets))) a white supremacist thing for identifying Jewish people?

Yep, that was Assange either being ignorant to a point stretching past credibility or anti-semitic.

Something showing Labour undermining Corbyn would be more supportive of Corbyn / hard left.

Since Russia's relevant interests are in destablising the Atlantic alliance and undermining the European Union, elevating the US- and EU-critical Corbyn over more reasonable elements in Labour is exactly what one would expect.

Not necessarily. It could be to provide tinder for a Labour civil war. Hell, being in Australia I know all about the right benefiting from such a thing. It’s certainly a huge hypocrisy.

>WikiLeaks offers award for #LabourLeaks. Wikileaks offers £20,000 reward for #LabourLeaks with information on how the Labour Party’s top officials have attempted to stop Jeremy Corbyn becoming and staying on as leader." Any chance of a reward for information pertaining to Trump or Russia? I didn't think so.

Given that half of the establishment is hell bent on finding evidence of a Trump/Russia conspiracy theory, whether it exists or not, Wikileaks isn't really a necessary part of the process. If there is something, somebody will share it.

> If there is something, somebody will share it.

But yet they need to offer a 20k GBP reward for inside info on British Labour? I thought “if there is something, somebody will share it”?

Yes. At the time every single British media outlet including the Guardian, the Independent and the BBC were attacking and undermining Corbyn on a daily basis.

Which one of them would you share your secrets with?

Contrast that with the Washington Post, which would wet its collective pants if you found anything on Trump, no matter how minor, and would probably offer a large reward. The NYTimes clearly hates him too. You're spoiled for choice.

> If there is something, somebody will share it.

...and will probably get paid by the mainstream media for it.

That's kinda why I used the phrase 'my perception' - I don't want to make statements of fact about something this vague and political (I'm not in the US before anyone gets upset about my biases, and as for the stooge comment neither do I intend it as an anti-Russia slur). However, I'd be intrigued as to how the current US leadership would feel about an extradition request for Assange.

> This makes him a massive target.

Unless you're insinuating that it wasn't him that has given interviews/presented shows on RT (some kind of imposter?), that he isn't in control of the Twitter account, and isn't actually putting out the publicity materials that WikiLeaks does...

... I don't know how you can spin that he's been targeted. It's is own words and deeds that paint him for being at best a stooge.

> I think it's impressive that the media made you think he was the one responsible for that narrative

because he was. Is the media responsible for the wikileaks twitter account now?

Or his appearances on Russia Today (RT)

The left loved him when he exposed George Bush for shitty behavior.