It is a politically fraught issue because there is a long-running independence movement,[1] which the parent comment may have been obliquely referring to.
In case people are wondering, the analogy is to the appearance of a goose (the male goose is a gander) when it cranes its neck to look at something, and you can't use it in many places "look" fits, it's specifically an action so you can "take a gander" or "have a gander" but you don't just "gander" and the appearance of something is not its "gander".
After about the 11 minute mark the footage shows them working on the front page of the July 1 issue. Looks like they didn't shoot it all in one evening.
I disagree: I think there is a reasonable case to hold WikiLeaks and the NYT to different standards. I think WikiLeaks holds itself out as a much more anarchic news organisation than traditional outlets like the NYT. WikiLeaks isn't connected or have allegiance to any particular country, and will publish, let the facts speak for themselves and damn the establishment and any particular national interests that are harmed. On the other hand, organisations like the NYT are pretty open about how while they often publish against the wishes of USG they do ask for comment and may defer publication if they are satisfied there are very good reasons to do so. [1]
Therefore, for WikiLeaks to become highly partisan is a radical departure from their original mission; moreover, it has happened without WikiLeaks acknowledging that this is the case. I think you can't same the same for the NYT.
Wikileaks did that in the past and got hell for it, for the very reason that they were then a anarchic organisation that didn't curate and pick what they published. It is what got us the Afghan War documents and cable gate. In both cases Wikileaks was accused of putting "people lives at risk", through not that any case of death-caused-by-leak has ever been claimed by any US official. Only "at risk".
Going back further in time, there was actually a stated goal of Wikileaks. It wanted to make sure that leaking is so ubiquitous, common and supported that states can't afford to have deep secrets. Looking at the recent support of government leaking after the US election Wikileaks did gain large step towards that on both side of the political spectrum, be that intentional or not.
Why is anyone holding a site meant for whistleblowing and leaking of confidential information and the website of a newspaper to the same standard?
Apples and oranges, IMO: It's not really fair to get mad at an orange for not giving you apple juice.
>Therefore, for WikiLeaks to become highly partisan is a radical departure from their original mission; moreover, it has happened without WikiLeaks acknowledging that this is the case. I think you can't same the same for the NYT.
Well said. I don't get the partisanship from Wikileaks. What do they gain by picking sides? What is encouraging (or discouraging) Wikileaks to play cherry picker?
Well, there is that whole thing about their founder being illegally indefinitely detained and denied due process. There are no MRI machines in that embassy.
> being illegally indefinitely detained and denied due process
This is a mischaracterisation. If Assange wanted due process, he could leave the embassy and face the British (and then possibly Swedish) court systems. The only person choosing to arbitrarily detain Assange without due process is himself.
No. The entire Swedish thing is just trumped-up bullshit so that the US can extradite him on a currently sealed indictment, where he will then be tortured in prison as Manning was and is.
The problem with holding Wikileaks as "selective" is that you would have to establish that there are true leaks which they have withheld from us. There's this popular misconception that Wikileaks actually hacks to obtain the data, but this is false and no one has ever so much as attempted to prove otherwise.
So given that they can't select the sources, the claims of them being "selective" just sound ignorant to anyone who knows how they operate, especially when those same claims are so often repeated in publications which are openly selective.
First of all, if you know how Wikileaks operates, you know that as well as the leaks they generate content and opinions. They are not merely a funnel.
Second, if they were trying to be just a funnel but realised that they were only getting information from limited sources with a known agenda, then they would also know that they are facilitating a political agenda. They could be open about this. But they are not. They are keeping critical details of their own activities secret (ie they choose to be selective), which is directly contrary to their stated philosophy.
In a more empirical sense, an organisation can only be judged by its output, not by its slogans or cheerleaders. In that sense Wikileaks is clearly an organisation promoting a political agenda.
> First of all, if you know how Wikileaks operates, you know that as well as the leaks they generate content and opinions. They are not merely a funnel.
Yes, but that opinion is that powerful, unaccountable organizations shouldn't be able to keep deep secrets from the general public when they do things like manufacturing consent for war.
In fact Merriam Webster [1] very explicitly advocates for "gauge":
> The verb gauge, which refers to measuring or estimating, also has a variant gage. This variant appears to show up primarily in informal sources, though not often. Gauge is by far the preferred spelling in general usage for both the noun and the verb; we encourage you use it.
This isn't a discussion about whether a source encourages its use or not. It's about whether it's a typo or a correct spelling.
Your quote above, in which 'gage' is implicitly referred to as a spelling further supports that it's not a misspelling.
I don't know how to state this in a more friendly way. These are merely facts documented here for verification purposes. If anyone's immediate reaction to verifiable facts in the face of an imposter spreading misinformation differs from gratitude, I would fear for their ability to take in other easily verifiable facts.
> In July 2015, Russian
intelligence gained access to Democratic National
Committee (DNC) networks and maintained that
access until at least June 2016.
It's still around for some things, eg Jetstar. You used to be able to do a manual online transfer to pay for flights but now POLi is the only way you can avoid the $5 credit card surcharge. Grinds on me every time I buy a flight.
Fair point, thank-you. That taken into consideration, would you say there is no harm in at least adding Breitbart to the basket of news media sources? Which could also include CNN, who's anchors also could all very well have been candidates for chairman of Clinton's campaign.
I think "forced means of talent retention" is an unfairly harsh characterisation. It's a pretty reasonable policy considering taxpayers have to service the debt, and people who go overseas stop paying tax. It's all very well to propose a "good socialist system" but if people pay domestic fees and then leave NZ they're essentially getting a free ride and it's the people who don't go to uni who end up paying for it.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Papua_Movement