Meh they are prob imploded numbers. If you look at their stocks and recent activities you will see that they are dying quite quickly. Their revenue from the paper news is almost dried up and they can't figure out how to stay stagnant in the Internet news when are constantly publishing balant propaganda.

NY Times spends a lot of money making it easy to follow them.

r/politics position as well

ha! good one!

Even worse: there are actually people fighting WL. Normal people - usually Americans. I can't believe how somebody can be so obedient.

wikileaks has never published a single sentence that's been proven false (that i know of).

can someone on /r/conspiracy say why you are actually fighting the truth coming out of wikileaks? thanks.

I'll bite...

I'm not fighting WikiLeaks or "truth," I'm fighting the blind allegiance and defense of WikiLeaks. Treat it like any other media or political organization.

I'm also fighting the idea that if you are skeptical of WikiLeaks (myself, since 2010) then you are some kind of sheep. It doesn't have to be the MSM or WikiLeaks.

Ultimately, I want to know who is pushing that narrative - that it's one or the other; that the MSM is totally corrupt, but WikiLeaks isn't. I also want to know how people know that, given how much WikiLeaks has changed in terms of security and proof.

Every day this sub is spammed with people saying "watch out for shills" or "they are going to say he's a russian spy," trying to head off any criticism whatsoever.

So, I want the truth from WikiLeaks or whoever can prove they are being truthful and aren't holding back any information.

thanks!

No prob, I appreciate your civility.

Exactly what happened with Gamergate and PizzaGate. Users and mods have to be aware of the DNC shills

I don't doubt the authenticity of what they leak, well I don't much care one way or the other, but I think that what they choose to release and when should be viewed as very important. That coupled with the relationships that WikiLeaks/Assange have and the comments they make.

I was sick of Assange before he skipped bail, but I feel bad for his persecution and really take that into consideration. However, I have recently become even more fed up with him/WikiLeaks. Whoever operates their Twitter account is far too political and desperate for attention - like that "severed by state actor" crap when Ecuador denied him the Wifi password, and seeing them offering money for leaks now, specifically from the Obama admin, seems really off to me.

That doesn't mean to say "WikiLeaks is compromised!" or whatever, and I know they're a target. It's like u/schoofer says, not black and white.

What about the times wikileaks promised to publish all that info on the banks? Then they just stopped talking about it.

How do you justify that?

I won't challenge the veracity of documents they publish, but their behaviour is suspicious.

I saved this comment from another thread

For an organization dedicated to "transparency" and "neutrality," I'm a bit confused by this AMA... So far, you've:

• outright refused to respond to several of the most important issues with such a powerful and unchecked publication like WL ( here , here , and here , for example),

• championed the citizen journalism on reddit in spite of the constant flow of misinformation and unsubstantiated rumors that were created and perpetuated by these "investigations" that fail to live up to your alleged standard of journalistic integrity and ethics,

• sensationalized non-stories and actively remove context to be most damaging to Hillary's campaign,

• passively encouraged witchhunting businesses with little-to-no evidence to substantiate the baffling rumors that you've encouraged,

• touted the anonymity of your sources without acknowledging the agendas you further by never questioning the leakers' political motivations ,

• openly declared that you time the releases for " maximum impact " as opposed to the " get it out as quickly as possible " model you also claim to employ (i.e. intentionally waiting until after the primaries were finished to leak the DNC emails),

• hid behind the claim that you never received any leaks about the Trump campaign even though Assange has said otherwise (not to mention how incredibly convenient an excuse that is, since it's completely unverifiable; I find it nearly impossible to believe that no one leaked anything about one of the most polarizing figures of modern times, especially considering the breadth of the scandals in the mainstream media...you're telling us that no one who leaked these stories/tapes/whatever to CNN also sent any of it to you? Or was the information just supposedly not of interest or consequence , while Podesta's family's taste in performance art and Hillary's daily musings with Huma were?,

• refused to respond to people questioning your merchandising supporting Trump while still claiming impartiality,

• claimed that you research and contextualize the leaks before publications yet refuse to identify the sources and their motivations and do nothing to investigate the opposing campaign for a truly nonpartisan stance,

• repeatedly failed to accept your direct role in the election , regardless of your intentions or those of your sources. This isn't an academic exercise in open-journalism, this is a real life issue with real life consequences that require a level of nuance and counter-investigation to truly remain impartial.

And that's just to name a few of my burning questions/concerns. While I understand your stance on your sources' anonymity may be genuine in your minds, your claims " Every source of every journalist has an intention and an agenda, may it be hidden or clear. Requesting the intention from our sources would firstly likely jeopardize their anonymity, and secondly form a bias in our understanding of the information we received " are inherently contradictory - every source has an agenda and a bias, but somehow WL and your choice/timing of publications does not? And investigating further would form a bias? Or...it would make your decisions more informed and, as you put it, contextualized...

You also say "Working at WikiLeaks I know we do work with our submissions a lot for validation, how to present and where and when . What we do not do is censor. We believe in full access to information and knowledge for all citizens. We do not think we are the gatekeepers of information and your right to know. We publish what we receive that is true, for you all to see. Your right to information shouldn't be controlled by others " yet you become said gatekeepers by default and control the information you release by dumping it all instead of picking and choosing as well as timing it for impact.

So after all of this, my actual question would be how can we, as ordinary citizens (deprived of your internal communications that would verify your nonpartisanship etc), hold WikiLeaks as accountable as you would have us hold every other leader and publication?

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

crazy right? some people feel like WL has a (not so) hidden agenda. i have no idea where this came from.

http://www.salon.com/2016/10/14/bill-clinton-bimbo-poll-wikileaks-merchandise-shows-the-websites-real-bias/

I find it hilarious. Unfortunately not available. Sooo, what's the agenda?

first off, i'm a WL fan and supporter. I'm the first to use the "they've never been proven wrong" line.

but, you cannot say they don't have a huge bias. they are openly bashing and ex-president and the spouse of one who was running for president.

that is them deliberately alienating (pissing off) half of the american public.

so you can't say you're surprised to see americans speak negatively about WL, when WL were the ones who brought unnecessary bias into their "reporting"

read the WL AMA from a few months back, see how they responded to the questions about the Bill Clinton shirts. what they report may be 100% fact, they are choosing what to report and what not. and with a huge bias.

Which in turn proofs that "half of the Americans" are bias'ed sheeple. WL is not making stuff up. Thus don't shoot the messenger. IMHO WL is way to gentle to the Clinton's considering their fraudulent history.

That was AMA from wikileaks team not Assange. It was bit shitty because it

This is what brothers me about WL. They selectively release information in an attempt to control American politics. I'm all for transparency but it shouldn't be used selectivley. I'm sure Wikileaks has plenty of info that would hurt their political agenda if released.

I fail to see how exposing corruption is an attempt to "control" politics. Of course they intend to make an impact. How would the releases have looked if we'd faced a Jeb vs. HrC nightmare? Assange has repeatedly claimed he recieved nothing damning from the TD campaign, and would have released it if he had, does no one bellieve him?

What corruption has been exposed?

Even important people, one guy said "That's disgraceful. There should be a death penalty or something"

Don't expect the older generations to get woke quickly after an entire lifetime of conditioning.

i'm 54 years old, and i realized wikileaks' potential right away.

we should have patience with others, yes, but i hope the day is coming when people think twice about shouting down the usefulness of leaks.

I agree fully. I was just pointing out that the OPs point about what people would rather believe is inaccurate. Considering there was no internet until recently, full lifetimes of newspapers and mainstream media is not straightforward to break away from.

Bet there's plenty of gen x n y on there I find they're just as brain washed as their baby boomer predecessors.

If critical mass, tipping points, and the hundredth monkey theories are true, won't be long now.

Chris Cuomo of CNN told me it was illegal to read any Wikileaks stuff.I had to watch him for any developing information.

how many of the NYT followers are fake?

I'm guessing millions of the NYTimes twitter followers are fake. Twitter is filled with fake bot accounts. Hardly anybody seems to actually use twitter.

Support independent media, it's our duty as citizens.

I don't use twitter. If you have a twitter account, can others see what you are following? Maybe if you are looking for a job and want to look like a grown up, it helps to follow news sources like the NYT? So maybe people just follow it to be seen following it. I don't know anything about twitter though.

Do you believe it is warranted to say that people trust one over the other based off of twitter when name recognition alone far exceeds the other.

What does this even add to the overall, other than this oblivious karma farming attempt?

This, and other post like it are worthless for anything other than people farming karma. You're up there with "BREAKING: Wikileaks about to publish bombshell."

What I'm trying to say is quit slowly killing this sub with your shit posting.

Looks like we got that 100th monkey, eh?

How many people follow both?

The New York Times is a newspaper.

Forgot I had twitter. Just followed.

Because people enjoy entertainment aswell and those sites do provide them. I'm not arguing against, just stating the obvious

Here's the problem:

When you tell the average American that Wikileaks has been 100% accurate for the past 10 years, the response is almost universal:

They cock their head, blink twice slowly, and then change the subject. People literally reboot to ignore the information you just told them.

WikiLeaks has been taken over and can't be trusted.

Not for a second do I believe that all of those 32 million accounts are legit real people. Hillary had a lot of followers as well remember.

As much as I agree that the masses would rather be told how to think, I don't think "twitter followers" is a viable metric of measurement here. Twitter sucks

Those are fake followers, and corporations, and politicians, and all other kinds of fake shit.

I wholeheartedly understand and agree. With that said.

The MSM fear mongering has told people WikiLeaks is illegal. They have such a corrupt hold. People think it's high tech jargon above and beyond their understanding, with computer wars like Hollywood portrays (exploding 4chan van, anyone)

It's fear mongering. Pandering to drama for ratings. Cherry picking the stories. Cherry picking WikiLeaks stories for just the right time that help them push an agenda.

There is a special place in hell for what TPTB and media mogules are doing to this world.

God bless us all, good luck. We're gonna need it.

Half of the 32 million are fake accounts just like Obama's and HRC's followers.

i still know plenty of people who've barely heard of wikileaks

Large scale version of TL;DR - no one can be bothered to go through all that effort. And everyone, and I mean everyone, believes they have the ability to recognize media manipulation

Wikileaks was and still is the only true journalism out there. They balanced the elections.

I agree fully. I was just pointing out that the OPs point about what people would rather believe is inaccurate. Considering there was no internet until recently, full lifetimes of newspapers and mainstream media is not straightforward to break away from.

thanks!

Exactly what happened with Gamergate and PizzaGate. Users and mods have to be aware of the DNC shills