The Difference Between Wikileaks and Media

T

tsuke

New member
th.jpg

The Difference Between Wikileaks and Media

Yesterday wikileaks released an audio recording from Seymour Hersch where he confirmed that Seth Rich gave some confidential files from the DNC to Wikileaks. The left would like you to focus on the murder of Seth but that is not the main reason why this is relevant. The most important thing is that this is evidence that it was actually a leak not a hack. It is very important to remember that the intelligence agencies have a vested interest in destroying the reputation of Wikileaks and presenting them as a Russian front as they are the only organization that has held them even remotely accountable for their actions.*

The main reason for this article today is to address one issue the left brings up. Why do nationalists and conservatives believe the leaks presented by Wikileaks but do not believe the anonymous information presented by the press?*

It is not hypocritical or partisan to believe one and not the other. There is a distinction between them. Wikileaks does not make claims nor does it process the data. It presents the data leaked to them to the public and allows us to arrive at our own conclusions. The people involved are clearly named and, since they are usually public figures, have every opportunity to respond.*

Reporters on the other hand give us information that anonymous sources have told them or from documents that they alone have seen. They ask us to give them 100% of our trust sight unseen. To justify this trust they cite the reputations of their respective institutions. The irony of this is all of these organizations have had to retract stories just this year while Wikileaks maintains its perfect record of never having to retract a single story since it was founded. Even on the standards that the media want us to use their credibility pales in comparison to Wikileaks.*

When presented with an organization that presents the data to us and allows us to reach our own conclusions as opposed to one that insists on doing our thinking for us it is not strange for there to be higher trust placed in Wikileaks.

It is not a conspiracy, people being uneducated, or any other reason the left gives to explain away unwanted truths.*
 
tsuke said:
View attachment 4502

The Difference Between Wikileaks and Media

Yesterday wikileaks released an audio recording from Seymour Hersch where he confirmed that Seth Rich gave some confidential files from the DNC to Wikileaks. The left would like you to focus on the murder of Seth but that is not the main reason why this is relevant. The most important thing is that this is evidence that it was actually a leak not a hack. It is very important to remember that the intelligence agencies have a vested interest in destroying the reputation of Wikileaks and presenting them as a Russian front as they are the only organization that has held them even remotely accountable for their actions.*

The main reason for this article today is to address one issue the left brings up. Why do nationalists and conservatives believe the leaks presented by Wikileaks but do not believe the anonymous information presented by the press?*

It is not hypocritical or partisan to believe one and not the other. There is a distinction between them. Wikileaks does not make claims nor does it process the data. It presents the data leaked to them to the public and allows us to arrive at our own conclusions. The people involved are clearly named and, since they are usually public figures, have every opportunity to respond.*

Reporters on the other hand give us information that anonymous sources have told them or from documents that they alone have seen. They ask us to give them 100% of our trust sight unseen. To justify this trust they cite the reputations of their respective institutions. The irony of this is all of these organizations have had to retract stories just this year while Wikileaks maintains its perfect record of never having to retract a single story since it was founded. Even on the standards that the media want us to use their credibility pales in comparison to Wikileaks.*

When presented with an organization that presents the data to us and allows us to reach our own conclusions as opposed to one that insists on doing our thinking for us it is not strange for there to be higher trust placed in Wikileaks.

It is not a conspiracy, people being uneducated, or any other reason the left gives to explain away unwanted truths.*
Click to expand...
Does Wikileaks verify that their data is real? I thought the Russians gave them fake info? How is one to know their sources are reliable?
 
Covfefe said:
Does Wikileaks verify that their data is real? I thought the Russians gave them fake info? How is one to know their sources are reliable?
Click to expand...

that would be the no retractions since they were founded bit. Correct me if im wrong. NYT and WAPO just issued various retractions in the last 2 months.
 
Covfefe said:
Does Wikileaks verify that their data is real? I thought the Russians gave them fake info? How is one to know their sources are reliable?
Click to expand...

The Clinton Regime and Donna Brazile never denied the accuracy of the emails in question. Neither did Podesta

Bottom line is that if Seth Rich is really the source of DNC emails then your entire Russian collusion meme blows up
 
Darth Omar said:
Why is this being treated as a non-story by the usual media suspects?
Click to expand...
the unholy alliance of Deep State, lib press and Dems want Russiaphobia
mainstreamed.

Obviously the Deep State is inherently anti-Russian in all things, while the lib press happily promoted the meme that the "Russians hacked the election" as a ready made excuse for Hillary's loss
 
When presented with an organization that presents the data to us and allows us to reach our own conclusions as opposed to one that insists on doing our thinking for us it is not strange for there to be higher trust placed in Wikileaks.
Click to expand...
Hillary calls them "Russia-Leaks" :troll:

Remember the "cut out" that was supposed to be the go between Russia and and WIKI??
Notice how that is never mentioned anymore?
 
noise said:
the unholy alliance of Deep State, lib press and Dems want Russiaphobia
mainstreamed.

Obviously the Deep State is inherently anti-Russian in all things, while the lib press happily promoted the meme that the "Russians hacked the election" as a ready made excuse for Hillary's loss
Click to expand...

the deep state is not anti-russia. All they care about is discrediting wikileaks as it is the only organization that has held them even remotely accountable.
 
tsuke said:
the deep state is not anti-russia. All they care about is discrediting wikileaks as it is the only organization that has held them even remotely accountable.
Click to expand...

more then just WikiLeaks. it's an institutional hate of Russia

Deep State Begins Anti-Russia Media Blitz Ahead Of Trump-Putin Meeting
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...-whammy-media-blitz-ahead-trump-putin-meeting
With all eyes on the 'handshake' as Putin and Trump come face-to-face for the first time as world leaders, it seems the Deep State is desperately fearful of some rapprochement, crushing the need for NATO, and destroying the excuses for massive, unprecedented military-industrial complex spending.
unless Trump slams Putin to the ground like a wrestling-CNN-logo, he will be adjudged as being soft... and therefore clearly in cahoots with the Russian leader. Seriously, do the Deep State realy think Americans are that dumb? (rhetorical question)
 
tsuke said:
View attachment 4502

The Difference Between Wikileaks and Media

Yesterday wikileaks released an audio recording from Seymour Hersch where he confirmed that Seth Rich gave some confidential files from the DNC to Wikileaks. The left would like you to focus on the murder of Seth but that is not the main reason why this is relevant. The most important thing is that this is evidence that it was actually a leak not a hack. It is very important to remember that the intelligence agencies have a vested interest in destroying the reputation of Wikileaks and presenting them as a Russian front as they are the only organization that has held them even remotely accountable for their actions.*

The main reason for this article today is to address one issue the left brings up. Why do nationalists and conservatives believe the leaks presented by Wikileaks but do not believe the anonymous information presented by the press?*

It is not hypocritical or partisan to believe one and not the other. There is a distinction between them. Wikileaks does not make claims nor does it process the data. It presents the data leaked to them to the public and allows us to arrive at our own conclusions. The people involved are clearly named and, since they are usually public figures, have every opportunity to respond.*

Reporters on the other hand give us information that anonymous sources have told them or from documents that they alone have seen. They ask us to give them 100% of our trust sight unseen. To justify this trust they cite the reputations of their respective institutions. The irony of this is all of these organizations have had to retract stories just this year while Wikileaks maintains its perfect record of never having to retract a single story since it was founded. Even on the standards that the media want us to use their credibility pales in comparison to Wikileaks.*

When presented with an organization that presents the data to us and allows us to reach our own conclusions as opposed to one that insists on doing our thinking for us it is not strange for there to be higher trust placed in Wikileaks.

It is not a conspiracy, people being uneducated, or any other reason the left gives to explain away unwanted truths.*
Click to expand...

Wiki has never been proven wrong, media has never been proven right
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top