From what I heard last, Wikileaks had a leak of their Twitter PMs, supposedly, and some of them were quite on the far right spectrum of "that's not nice". WL has neither denied nor otherwise objected to these claims and leaks to my knowledge and there wasn't any evidence they were falsified as far as I was able to tell. IIRC the founder also promised to hand himself over if Chelsea Manning was pardoned, which happened at some point and yet he remained hold up in there.

I think WL at some point was "the most powerful force bringing to light information the public should know" but it's no longer the case. They just dump data into the internet with no sense of moderation or actual journalism.

Dumping a lot of data isn't journalism. Everyone can do that. Journalism is processing and summarizing the data, pointing out the parts that are troubling.

In the digital age, much of “journalism” is just an unnecessary obfuscation layer easily abused by powerful actors. Dumping the source documents provided by whistleblowers is preferable to withholding them from public gaze and printing a story.

Source documents can just as easily be abused.

You're the one quoting “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations."

i think you’ve interpreted it a bit too literally

It's a stupid quote and you know it.

It's obviously not meant to be interpreted as a definition of journalism.

It's meant to say that if you're just printing what someone powerful wants you to say, that's not journalism.

You sound like a preacher ‘explaining’ bible verses.

> Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names.