Just How Wise Is It When Marco Rubio Promises To Swear Off Factual Information From Wikileaks?
from the hmmmm dept
Amidst the reporting and fervor over the email hack of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, there has been something of a recent discussion that has begun over the ethics of circulating what is in that hacked cache. Some within the media itself have worried about about reporting either too much on the hacked emails, or even at all in some cases, with still others going for a more nuanced position of encouraging the reporting of information in the public interest while leaving all the personal stuff in the emails undisclosed to whatever degree is possible.
I don’t fault anyone for reporting real news, whatever the source, but circulating stuff from hacked emails just b/c it amuses you is gross.
— Julian Sanchez (@normative) October 19, 2016
It’s not difficult to see the wisdom and morality in some of this, particularly when one witnesses the glee the Clinton campaign’s political opponents have taken in circulating internal communications within the campaign that have no real public value other than serving as a point-and-laugh target for the most partisan among us. And it seems as though some in the GOP have in mind that there are certainly people on the other side of the aisle that would take the same joy in all of this, if the shoe were on the other hacked foot, as it were. Marco Rubio, for instance, recently released a statement indicating that anything published by WikiLeaks was out of bounds, as far as he was concerned.
“Today it is the Democrats. Tomorrow, it could be us,” Rubio said in a statement. “I will not discuss any issue that has become public solely on the basis of WikiLeaks,” added Rubio, who is up for re-election. “As our intelligence agencies have said, these leaks are an effort by a foreign government to interfere with our electoral process, and I will not indulge in it.”
Frankly, it’s refreshing to see a major political partisan actually understand that when you open up every option on the table to attack the political opponent, that can come back and bite you in the ass. But how wise is this particular stance, actually? It appears to rely on two premises: that Russia is behind the email hack and that WikiLeaks is a bad organization for releasing the information it releases. Note that Rubio doesn’t say that this particular email hack is out of bounds, but rather that any issue raised as a result of a WikiLeaks release is. That’s a hefty barrel of sand in which to put one’s head in such a proactive fashion, and it presupposes that WikiLeaks’ releases in the past, present, and future have not involved anything of the public interest which politicians and public servants should be talking about and/or addressing.
Time Magazine once said WikiLeaks “could become the most important journalistic tool since the Freedom of Information Act.” Why? Well, because the value in WikiLeaks is that it knows far fewer boundaries than the general media and is willing to release information that would otherwise not see the light of day. That it tends to do so en masse rather than with careful curation is a potential downside, certainly, but would Rubio and these others really have the public not know about the killing of journalists in Iraq, the Chinese arrests of Tibetan dissidents, the Peru oil scandal, and the rest? WikiLeaks is not explicitly anti-American, after all, and it has released information that is absolutely in the public interest and has caused discussions of political importance within our country that would have otherwise been impossible.
Put another way, it’s quite easy for Rubio to take this stance in the wake of an email hack that represents a fairly routine political scandal. What has been uncovered in the Podesta leaks is not unimportant, but it also isn’t earth-shattering. What if the hack and WikiLeaks leak had instead uncovered that Hillary Clinton had made a specific agreement with the Chinese government to offer them favors in exchange for illegal campaign contributions? Would Rubio’s stance hold true, despite the overwhelming importance of such information to American voters. It’s hard to imagine that it would.
So, a nuanced approach to what should be reported on the WikiLeaks release makes all the sense in the world. Let’s have that discussion. But putting a blanket over any information generated by WikiLeaks as an organization isn’t just dumb, it’s cutting out an important source of public good from the masses.
Filed Under: hacked, information, journalism, marco rubio, news, personal, privacy, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks
Comments on “Just How Wise Is It When Marco Rubio Promises To Swear Off Factual Information From Wikileaks?”
"Wikileaks is not explicitly anti-American."
Perhaps not explicitly. But Julian Assange IS. And the tool – the tool that I lauded when it came out, the tool that I volunteered to do legal work for – is so corrupted from its original mission by a founder with an ego that rivals Trump’s that it is worse than useless. It trades on its reputation to be a propaganda tool, and a tool to feed Assange’s hunger for publicity. Honestly, I’m not that sure I see the difference between the work Wikileaks is doing and the work James O’Keefe is doing.
The worst part is, by turning his brilliant innovation into what it is now, Assange is destroying whatever GOOD work it could potentially do in the future. I no longer have any interest in Wikileaks. It is an archetypical organization corrupted by its success.
Luckily, there are now many, many other tools that do the same thing. Put Wikileaks on the longboat and light the torch. It did its work; it forged the path for others. It’s dead. Mourn it, but don’t pretend it’s still alive.
Re: "Wikileaks is not explicitly anti-American."
Bollocks. Wikileaks is exposing the depth of corruption in the US government. This is an admirable goal no matter which party is currently getting shat on by its internal leakers (and we all know damned well that Hillary’s red scare tactics are based on zero evidence, and even if they coincidentally turn out to be true, are irrelevant to the corruption exposed).
Their past deeds are great for America, their present are great for America, and I feel quite confident their future will be too.
Re: Re: "Wikileaks is not explicitly anti-American."
Re: Re: Re: "Wikileaks is not explicitly anti-American."
Shallow? Not based on what I’ve seen so far. The Haiti stuff is particularly disgusting.
As for influencing the election, I couldn’t give half a shit. The election is not sacrosanct. Everyone, their moms, and their moms’ little doggies try to influence the election. You and I discussing shit in this thread are influencing the election. If he’s preventing a corrupt politician from getting the presidency, he’s doing the US and most likely the whole world a favour.
Heck, it’s BETTER for him to influence the election than it would be to release outside of election time. I’d suggest that anyone upset about corruption being exposed might just be backing the wrong horse, and not liking it very much.
(Disclaimer: I am NOT a Trump supporter. I’ll probably vote for him to stop the TPP, but it’s like a choice between a razorblade sandwich and a thumbtack enema)
Re: Re: Re:2 "Wikileaks is not explicitly anti-American."
More like syphilis and gonorrhea. I’m abstaining. Both are too awful to legitimize with a vote. Pragmatism has limits.
Re: Re: Re:3 "Wikileaks is not explicitly anti-American."
Don’t abstain, that is going to result in the party you hate getting elected with no proof of how dissatisfied the people are. Vote for the closest 3rd party candidate that you are able too. If more people vote for a 3rd party than for either of the two “primary” ones, the people have spoken.
Re: Re: Re:4 "Wikileaks is not explicitly anti-American."
The change many people want in USA has to come from somewhere. If it is at the presidential level, so be it! But while third party is infinitely better than couch potatoing it, the way to change would be to elect someone willing to change the district gerrymandering as a first step and as much as I respect Jill and Gary, neither of them has actually run on a candidacy that promotes such changes.
I would look at Sanders/King as a model (not politically): Get people elected from a third party platform into the system at lower level offices and help them promote the cause! That is the best way to make such changes politically opportune.
Re: Re: Re:5 "Wikileaks is not explicitly anti-American."
I lost all respect for Gary when he decided to support the TPP. That dude’s dead to me.
Jill is a candidate I can respect, and the best remaining option with Bernie and Rand out of the race, but when it comes to Presidential races, 3rd parties plain don’t matter except as a way to suck votes from the leaders.
This isn’t a 3-4 party race, this is a Hillary vs Trump race, and any vote for any other candidate is effectively wasted.
Re: Re: Re:6 "Wikileaks is not explicitly anti-American."
No. If you are not voting in a swing state then a 3rd party vote is the most meaningful vote you can cast (assuming you agree with that 3rd party) because you do not risk “spoiling” the republican/democratic outcome, but your disagreement with their policies will be registered.
Re: Re: Re:4 "Wikileaks is not explicitly anti-American."
thank you…
my ‘useless protest vote’ (as opposed to my useless earnest vote) is going for the same slate as i wrote in last time: Snowden/Manning…
ultimately, a system of ranked choice/instant runoff voting is the ‘solution’ to allowing third/fourth/etc party candidates have a theoretical chance…
(of course, that presupposes a LOT of other factors being addressed: election fraud by insiders on vulnerable computer-based systems, free media for elections (thus eliminating 90% of the ‘value’ in massive campaign war chests), etc…
Re: Re: Re:4 "Wikileaks is not explicitly anti-American."
Abstention is a vote. It is a vote for "none of the above".
Re: Re: Re:5 "Wikileaks is not explicitly anti-American."
No, unfortunately it’s a vote for "any of the above". Abstention from voting says you either don’t care about the outcome, or that you think all the choices would do what you consider to be an acceptable job.
Going to the polls and writing in a candidate not on the ballot wouldn’t be counted it most places(most states require write in candidates file some paperwork in advance to have votes for them tallied), but it shows you care enough to show up to the polls, you just don’t care for any of them.
Re: Re: Re:6 "Wikileaks is not explicitly anti-American."
Not at all. It is not a vote for for any of the above. Of course, there are always those who will try to claim otherwise.
Going to the polls and voting even when presented with no acceptable choices just says that you’re a sheeple who doesn’t care what the choices are: you’ll vote for or go along with anything. Just like they want you to.
Re: Re: Re:3 "Wikileaks is not explicitly anti-American."
Catching syphilis or gonorrhea was a court martial offense in the US military until someone realized that hiding the occurrences of these diseases was far worse than exposing them. Not just for the infected individual, but also for spreading those infections.
The more truth that is known, the safer that we all are. The NYTimes was aware of the extent of torture in Gitmo a year before the 2004 election, but decided that it couldn’t release that information because it would “interfere” with the election. From a legal, moral and pragmatic stance, it have an obligation to make sure that horror was cleansed with sunlight before Bush got another four years to innure the public to what was happening.
Re: Re: Re:4 "Wikileaks is not explicitly anti-American."
Yeah, truth can have that effect on elections. No wonder they try to keep it from coming out.
Re: Re: Re:2 "Wikileaks is not explicitly anti-American."
Re: Re: Re:2 "Wikileaks is not explicitly anti-American."
“If he’s preventing a corrupt politician from getting the presidency, he’s doing the US and most likely the whole world a favour.”
Clinton’s ‘corruption’ is going to be far less damaging to the US and the rest of the world than Trump would be. It baffles me that you’re so appalled by her fairly standard politician’s behaviour that you’d accept a man so grossly incapable of doing the job. If he manages to do half the things he wants the damage will be shocking to behold. More likely he won’t have enough support to do much and the USG will be completely impotent and become a world laughing stock.
“Heck, it’s BETTER for him to influence the election than it would be to release outside of election time.”
Absolutely not. As AC said above, releasing as early as possible give more people more time to properly process the info and avoid stupid over-reactions or missing stuff that’s actually important. Advocating for less analysis goes completely against your claim that this info is important. The late release benefits Wikileaks only, not the public.
“I’d suggest that anyone upset about corruption being exposed might just be backing the wrong horse, and not liking it very much.”
Nice strawman, but nobody has claimed they’re upset about corruption being exposed. The criticism here is about when Wikileaks is choosing to release, and who actually benefits from there timetable.
Re: Re: Re: "Wikileaks is not explicitly anti-American."
“The problem with what wikileaks is doing right now is they are exploiting the election deadline.”
Just watch how quickly the State Dept FOIA email releases dry up after Nov. 8th, and tell me about “exploiting the election deadline”.
The State Dept saved releasing the good stuff for last, so that they wouldn’t have to release it if HRC won.
Re: Re: Re: "Wikileaks is not explicitly anti-American."
You cannot judge the depth of an ocean by dipping your toes in it.
Re: Re: Re: Twain: "A lie can travel halfway around the world..."
"While the truth is getting its shoes on"
An ethical journalist has to be helping truth get its shoes on, and has to choose which parts are relevant and important.
For some reason, (probably because the quality of writing we saw as children), anything "on the internet" is seen as the truth. Wikileaks, with its explicit lack of filtering, is unfortunately susceptible to false flag operations. The democratized internet also makes checking more difficult than it was — all we have is a bunch of bits, but we can’t normally visit the original source for vetting anymore, or use the fact that they own a rather large printing press such as a newspaper.
In addition, there’s way too much material available to actually read, so journalists like those at Techdirt have to make choices, even within their areas of interest. The inevitable result is a bias; the best that can be done with that bias is to disclose it explicitly.
Re: Re: Re:2 Twain: "A lie can travel halfway around the world..."
Man, have you got a lot to learn.
Re: Re: Re:3 Twain: "A lie can travel halfway around the world..."
Then you need to learn how to use the net. Far and away above all other sources of the news you have the ability to check and countercheck all statements. That is of course not a guarantee that truth will be exposed at all , but it is far superior to reading one paper, or worse watching one one TV channel.
With responses like @9:19 it makes me wonder how many ringers are on Techdirt.
Re: Re: Re:4 Twain: "A lie can travel halfway around the world..."
“Then you need to learn how to use the net.”
If you believe that “anything on the internet is seen as the truth” then I believe you are another one that has a lot to learn about it because nothing could be further from the truth.
Re: Re: Re:5 Twain: "A lie can travel halfway around the world..."
When I see something on the net that I find questionable, I can search for alternating positions from a dozen different sources in minutes. Weighting them from past experience and judging the apparent veracity by self contradiction gives me a pretty good idea of what is happening.
Your logical fallacy indicate to me that your opinion is based purely on bias, not experience or capability.
So where do you come up with your “facts” and opinions? If you don’t believe anything that you find on the net, what do you do? Make them up? On that I would have to congratulate you. It is pretty hard to consistently find an opinion or claimed fact that doesn’t appear on the net. You must have a wild imagination.
Re: Re: Re:6 Twain: "A lie can travel halfway around the world..."
Only an idiot thinks that something being on the internet makes it true. Congratulations on your new title.
Re: Re: Re:7 Twain: "A lie can travel halfway around the world..."
I suspect that your problem is an inability to understand what you have read. That and the use of meaningless pejoratives.
Perhaps you read only one source, or like all too many have only read one book. You do not appear to have the skills to compare and contrast different materials to attempt to determine which if any is true. The web makes it rather easy to do that, whereas deadtree based information does not.
Re: Re: Re:6 Twain: "A lie can travel halfway around the world..."
Yep! I make my facts up. And then I spew them on the net. That makes them true!
Re: Re: Re:7 Twain: "A lie can travel halfway around the world..."
Now we are getting somewhere. This is an admission that can be thoroughly believed.
Re: Re: Re:2 Twain: "A lie can travel halfway around the world..."
Re: Re: Re: "Wikileaks is not explicitly anti-American."
Philosophical question: if you use bad democracy to thwart a corrupt candidate whose entire campaign has literally been built on subverting democracy, is the result good or bad for democracy?
Re: Re: Re:2 The end justifies the means?
“if you use bad democracy to thwart a corrupt candidate whose entire campaign has literally been built on subverting democracy, is the result good or bad for democracy?”
A wise philosopher once said “There are no ends, only means” — often repeated by Senator Everett Dirksen to newbie politicians
“The first sign of corruption in a society that is still alive is that the end justifies the means” — Georges Bernanos (1955)
Re: Re: Re:2 "Wikileaks is not explicitly anti-American."
That’s not a question, that’s just your opinion of clinton with a bunch of window dressing to make it sound thoughtful instead of nutty.
Re: "Wikileaks is not explicitly anti-American."
None of that makes any sense. It’s just a typical fact-free rant that tries to turn an issue into one about personality politics.
Re: "Wikileaks is not explicitly anti-American."
Most of the world is probably anti american at this point. Considering the constant leaks of what their government keeps doing.
You can choose to shoot the messengers or get your house in order.
Seems like most would rather pretend nothing is wrong and shoot the messengers.
Re: Re: "Wikileaks is not explicitly anti-American."
^This. So much this!
Re: Transparency is not explicitly anti-American.
It just looks that way to certain people. Namely ones trying to hide their dirt.
Re: "Wikileaks is not explicitly anti-American."
Truth and/or opposition is pro-American. Our government has its own reasons to act in just the opposite. But then our government itself is rather anti-American.
How many “conspiracy theories” have later turned out to be closer to truth than the propaganda that we are fed?
I agree with Klein’s argument in The Intercept piece. Saying it’s OK to do whatever you want with the leak because the guy’s a dick is the same principle as saying the law shouldn’t apply because the accused is a pedo. It’s a bad precedent with the potential to create a slippery slope.
Still, I doubt Rubio has any concerns about ethics. The business model of Washington is corruption. Like all of them, he would rather the conversation be about the usual inconsequential bullshit instead of the tyrannosaurus rex in the room.
Tomorrow
Quote: “”Today it is the Democrats. Tomorrow, it could be us,” Rubio said in a statement.”
If Rubio, or any other politicians are involved in similar sleazy back-room corruption as what is being revealed in the John Podesta wikileaks emails, then I HOPE that they are exposed tomorrow.
I'm swearing off reality.
Don’t like it. Never have.
Re: I'm swearing off reality.
Reality is the illusion caused by a lack of drugs.
Pre-emptive strike
This guy, Rubio, is likely just anticipating the release of material that might shed some iffy light on him and/or others on the Republican side. So seeing the Hannitys of the world getting all giddy about Wikileaks, he’s like, “How on earth are we Republicans going to delegitimize this if our own emails come out when we condemned the Democrat emails??” Smart, right?
His seeming fairness and benevolence, to me, are just a savvy way of making sure all the politicians, regardless of party, can deny, deny, deny. Shhhhsh! Don’t rock the boat. Sad.
I got a different project.
Lets look at Leland Yee in California, you know the guy that wanted to score some man pads for money for running for Secretary of State of California. Someone should ask the current SOS how they would feel if they were Mr Yee. Yee only got 5 years. I guess they didn’t call it terrorism. Man that dude would be in Ft Leavenworth if it was up to me.
Kamala D Harris running for US Senator today in California.
Making me quickly sick and nauseated is a document I found over here with her in there. Urgency eh…
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2010
I know people found some dirt on Feinstein. Lookin in reddit helps organize . Pelosi. PODESTA was a real piece of work. It all smells like several different flavors of sulfur from the pit of hell is down below.
Try to eat and get good sleep is all I can say.
This guy is a corporate shill. He lost to D.J. Trump in his home state, wait for it, Florida. I especially like his speech about the haves and the soon to have, instead of the have and the have not. He is a good orator, like the POTUS, but he would be better suited to changing diapers or driving a truck.
You start censoring some things then you have to censor it all.
You are either someone that reports the news or you are a propagandist.
But:
I argue that he did good, but he stopped to soon. Another group, dont know who, released part of Colin’s and conga’s emails. They show a similar problem. But, now,where is the outrage? Oh, and they have the same types of classified materials, and policy directions, and names. But, no outrage? No wikileaks? I would argue, that it is a political party prank. The feeling, that we have to drag down one to the level of service, to zilch. Playing off hate you and yours, to make division, not unity. Will you trust the party’s ability to make us great, if they spy on you? Can you trust the news sources to tell the truth, after this, from either side of the market? Are we free anymore?
Just How Wise
Pretty wise.
The fact that better than 80% of the country is voting for a candidate on the basis of everything except facts, suggests that Americans don’t give a shit about facts.
At some point you have to look at results, and ascertain from it intent. If Americans gave a shit about facts, they would consider those the relate to the genuine malice directed at them, every day, across the spectrum of the unholy trinity of cabal news.
The recourse thereafter would not reflect as it appears to. Which suggests that either Americans ARE so narcissistic as to be easily duped by single-serving chickenshit ego-bait, or the underlying corruption is effective enough as to easily repudiate all available reasoned inquiry.
That the trinity is haughty and dismissive at reasoned inquiry into the integrity of the voting system, is itself the biggest indicator that both are completely corrupt.
–First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
–Ghandi
What ever happened to not being worried if you have nothing to hide?
Guess that is just for us peons.
Wikileaks did not help
In my decision for whom to vote for. It came from folks pleading the 5th when they have immunity. If you cannot incriminate yourself (because of granted immunity) Who are you really protecting?
The tone of the emails don’t surprise me, they came from politicians…lowest of the low when it comes to pond scum.
What is disheartening is the complicity of the forth estate in rooting for one team or another. How much fun would watching a football game be if you knew the refs were rooting for one team, and calling the game in their “favor”.
So…if Wikileaks shows leak that shows either Russia, China, or Isis or other bad “actor” planning something for the US, it’s ok to disregard it, because it’s from Wikileak?
hacked? are you certain about that?
Amidst the reporting and fervor over the email hack of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, there has been something of a recent discussion that has begun over the ethics of circulating what is in that hacked cache. Some within the media itself have worried about about reporting either too much on the hacked emails,…
Has it been established that those emails were obtained via hacking? Citation needed.
If the emails were from Trump, this wouldn’t even be discussed, of course the media would get them out there.
As for the timing of it, are you kidding me?
Guess what, the media had those tapes of him with Billy Bush for 11 years. Think it is by chance that they were not released until now?
Funny thing is, most people (even commenters here) are fine with anything, as long as it supports their own thinking and candidate, which is quite sad and says a lot of things about you.
Private servers, staffers using Hotmail or yahoo for email? Only one reason that is done, to avoid FOIA requests. Government people who do that should go to jail. That includes Christie staffers over Bridgegate and Hillary and any other government official.
a few things...
1.we American citizens don’t elect the president, the electoral college does-and they can vote with or against the popular vote–>lets fix that 1st
2.we need congressional term limits. why should politics be a life long career?–>lets fix that next
3.the whole 2016 presidential election is just a distraction that plays out like reality tv:
-a woman presidential candidate
-illegal email server scandal
-sensational republican candidate that grows more controversial with every public/private comment he makes
-groping scandal
-etc…
Re: a few things...
Agreed with most of your points but…
“-a woman presidential candidate”?
That’s not a new thing. Remember when Palin was McCain’s pick for Veep? If he’d won, then popped his clogs, the self-proclaimed hockey mom would have been the president.
Jill Stein has been running (unsuccessfully) for president since 2012.
Your entire premise assumes that Rubio — a man who is currently running for re-election to the Senate after saying he would not seek re-election to the Senate — will not do a thing that he says he will not do.
I see to recall no one in government applauding Wikileaks when they released all of the information fed to them via Chelsea Manning.
Funny how times change.