TIL about the "'New York Times problem'—the dilemma of indicting Assange for the very same kind of investigative journalism that mainstream media engages frequently" - eviltoast

Two of us, Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky, testified for Assange at his extradition hearing last year. In Ellsberg’s words then, the WikiLeaks publications that Assange is being charged for are “amongst the most important truthful revelations of hidden criminal state behavior that have been made public in U.S. history.” The American public “needed urgently to know what was being done routinely in their name, and there was no other way for them to learn it than by unauthorized disclosure.”

  • Dr. Bob@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem with a salted archive is that some percentage of it is true - let’s say 99.9%. So if you start to verify material it all appears to be factually correct. The agency will slip some very damaging falsehoods into a mountain of embarrassing but true material. The accurate material “cleans” the falsehoods. Welcome to WikiLeaks, and probably Hunter Biden’s laptop as well.

    Part of the game is that the salting doesn’t get acknowledged. You don’t want them to know what you know and by revealing what’s false you implicitly verify the remaining material. You can game this out by slipping in a couple of whoppers and some subtle lies. The whoppers get denied implying the subtle ones are true. So not revealing the salt is the equivalent of " no comment".

    There used to be more chatter about Assange and the intelligence community but it has gone quiet for the last few years. That alone might suggest something is up.

    https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/mar/18/wikileaks-russias-useful-idiot-its-agent-influence/