And I still think NYT should've published its big NSA story in 2005, not sat on it. The difference? Consequences. Releasing Clinton leaks helped (minimally) elect a sociopath; sitting on NSA story withheld news of a grave violation of civil liberties
Though I welcomed the release of the Clinton emails at the time, I now think Wikileaks should've sat on them till after the election.
-
-
-
WHILE CHOOSING TO WITHHOLD THEM WOULD HAVE (MINIMALLY) HELPED ELECT A DIFFERENT SOCIOPATH AND MAXIMALLY INSULATE A CORRUPTED POLITICAL PARTY FROM ELECTORAL CONSEQUENCES?
-
I do not think the Democratic Party is just as awful as the Republican Party, and I think a President HRC would have been a much more manageable opponent than what we have now.
-
PROSPECT OF HAVING THE CENTER-LEFT PARTY TURNED INTO A CLINTONITE MACHINE FOR ANOTHER COUPLE OF DECADES (WITH ZERO CHANCE OF REFORM) *DOES* HAVE A CERTAIN APPEAL
-
AS DOES JOURNALISTIC INSTITUTIONS DECIDING TO WITHHOLD CRITICAL BREAKING STORIES BECAUSE THE RUBE PUBLIC CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO VOTE THE 'RIGHT' WAY IF GIVEN TOO MUCH INFORMATION
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You're fuckin insane
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.