• givesomefucks@lemmy.worldBanned
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    146
    ·
    9 months ago

    The weird part is everyone forgetting in a week or two…

    The media is on the side of the wealthy, because that’s the whole reason they bought the media in the first place.

    This isn’t the first time, been happening since newspapers were cutting edge. It’s the natural result of deregulating journalism. So ething both parties do at almost every opportunity.

    All the shit going on now with the media can be traced back to Slick Willy in the 90s.

    https://truthout.org/articles/democracy-in-peril-twenty-years-of-media-consolidation-under-the-telecommunications-act/

    • BossDj@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I dunno. Between Hilary emails and Steele Dossier, I feel like MSM is afraid of being used in manipulation schemes.

      Whether by foreign agents or even Trump campaign leaking information themselves, baiting media to release a bland report full of already public information just so he can change the narrative back to Government and MSM colluding against him or whatever BS he wants to spew.

      If there is any little reported or good stuff, they can now just research and find their own story and leave out the whole "hack "

      Robert could have dumped this stuff anywhere.

  • Kit
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    9 months ago

    I’m perpetually out of the loop. Did Trump’s emails get leaked?

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      No, they specifically didn’t get leaked. And that’s the story. Trump’s team got hacked, and the hackers sent the emails to the news outlets. The outlets protected Trump, and refused to publish the emails.

      Which is in stark contrast to what happened when Hillary’s emails got sent to the news outlets. The outlets were clambering to be the first to publish them.

      Almost as if the outlets have a strong bias…

      • EvacuateSoul@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        9 months ago

        They did not wipe all the emails. Her team sorted through to send only the ones which were subpeonaed, which is what you are supposed to do.

        And the DNC hack is what the original post probably meant, but people mix all this stuff up. Those were published on Wikileaks and generated super productive controversies, such as pizzagate.

        And it isn’t illegal per se to use private email. It’s extremely common, but should be cracked down on. A big problem with it is age. Try telling your grandma she has to use a different email when she contacts you about certain topics.

          • SolOrion@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            9 months ago

            Nixon was impeached for deleting 8 minutes of his own personal audio recordings… as those records were subpoenaed, because you can’t keep any kind of private records of you conducting government business….

            That is such a gross oversimplification of why Nixon was impeached I don’t even know where to start.

          • EvacuateSoul@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            Criminal intent is required for all crimes except those which are strict liability.

            And you really ate the propaganda on the rest, not sure what else to say.

  • Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Lock them emails up came the cry from the C suite and the editor asked what he should run instead.

    I worked in small and medium sized print media for a few decades. Very loosely around 1998 you’d still see the newest, greenest, most eager-to-please editor be able to tell the owner or C’s to fuck right off if there was an attempt to break the wall between the money and the news. It was just assumed and known really - because while few examples happened, for the most part management or money would never even think of doing it.

    By the early 2000s, while print was still king and only just preparing to completely fuck up internet advertising and kill the industry, the wall cracked a bit. “It’s the beginning of the end” many would say while others said they were just ads on the front above the fold. The former was correct.

    And now we have a media landscape run by the money, for the money.

  • BossDj@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    9 months ago

    WIKILEAKS released Hilary’s emails. Not the media.

    WikiLeaks is a shell now, almost non-existent. For years it’s been little more than a Twitter account, but even that hasn’t posted since June.

  • pjwestin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    8 months ago

    Jesus Christ, I can’t believe how dense people are being about this. First of all, they weren’t Hillary Clinton’s emails, they were John Podesta’s emails. Second of all, and more importantly, the, “Mainstream Political Media,” didn’t publish those emails, Wikileaks did.

    In 2016, Russian hackers got Podesta’s emails, Wikileaks published them, and the media reported on them once they were already exposed. In 2024, Wikileaks is functionally dead, so Iranian hackers sent them directly to mainstream media outlets. Mainstream outlets don’t want to deal with the legal issues associated with releasing hacked information, so they sit on them.

    This isn’t some conspiracy by the media to ensure Trump wins. This is a direct result of 20+ of allowing our government to persecute whistleblowers and leakers.

    • pelespirit@sh.itjust.worksM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I disagree, the “media” is trying to get trump elected. When I say media, I mean 80% of the mainstream publications. Some are insanely left, so much so that it looks like a parody (looking at you Huffington Post). But here is why I suspect that is so:

      • Trump is great for getting outrage clicks from all sides. The people who love him, to see the liberal tears. And the people who hate him because they’re worried about America’s future and are actually crying.
      • They are mostly owned and/or ran by the 1%. See here. https://sh.itjust.works/post/20890256 They’re probably being promised tax breaks and lots of other shit. They forget that no one wants to live in a 1% utopia of either being their slaves or living in a rich HOA with libertarians as the president.
    • A7thStone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Don’t give Assange a pass for being a leaker. He had Republican emails in 2016 and choose not to leak them.

      • pjwestin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’m like…80% sure that’s not true. I don’t remember any story about GOP emails, and I can’t find any reporting on it now.

        That being said, I’m not giving Assange a pass. At the time he was getting Podesta’s emails from Russian hackers, he was declining to publish a cache of Russian government documents. It’s possible that dropping those leaks was part of his negotiations to get the Podesta emails, or that he had just developed a strong anti-U.S. bias after being imprisoned in an embassy for 4 years, but that’s still no excuse for violating the Wikileaks’ founding principle of holding all power accountable. Also, beyond the bias problems, I think the sexual assault allegations against Assange are credible, and he should have been prosecuted in Sweeden. Wikileaks was a very flawed organization, and Assange is a complete piece of shit.

        However, the U.S. didn’t want to prosecute Assange for the Podesta hack, or Russian espionage, or sexual assault. They wanted to prosecute him for telling the world that the U.S. military murdered two Reuters journalists. For all of Wikileaks flaws, they did some important work, and there’s no one willing to do that work now that they’re gone. A great example of that is all these legacy media groups sitting on Trump’s emails but being too scared to publish them.

        • A7thStone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Assange denied getting any leaks from the rnc, but one of the alphabet agencies confirmed that the rnc was hacked at the same time. Getting any of this information is difficult at best now with how shitty search has become and the fact that any search you do will bring up podesta or the recent email leak. It’s also sketchy that right after Assange started doing a show for RT. Assange is a self serving narcissist not a whistle blower, except when it’s to his benefit.

          • pjwestin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Fair enough, I’ll adjust my search terms to see if I can find anything on that. I agree that Assange is a PoS, and it does seem like his Kremlin ties are genuine. I tend to be skeptical when the security agencies tell us someone is secretly a Russian asset (like when the state department revoked Snowden’s passport while he was stopped in Russia on his way to Ecuador, then accused him of going there to aid Russia, even though they literally forced him to be there), but it certainly seems like Assange had or developed an interest in aiding the Russian government.

            Wikileaks was unfortunately too centered around Assange himself, and only had a non-governing advisory board as it’s infrastructure, so there really was no way to separate the organization from the man. It’s a shame, because I think the work they did (especially early on) was very important, and I think the world is worse off without an organization like them.

            • A7thStone@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              I definitely agree. The work WikiLeaks did, especially early on, shed light on things we probably wouldn’t have seen without it. Then it became Assange’s personal grudge machine, and I had a hard time trusting it after that. He insists he never did any curation of the leaks he released, but how do we know that’s true once he started to show his bias.

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.worksBanned
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    9 months ago

    Idiot Junior tweeted his own e-mails where the campaign arranged Russian interference for sanctions relief, and it got lost under the ten thousand other high crimes, treasonous acts, and outright efforts toward a coup d’etat.

    • Asidonhopo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      The New York Times, I believe. They got sent the research document the GOP did on Vance’s vulnerabilities by a state-level actor, probably Iran. They alerted the campaign and didn’t release it.