Assange Journalism

[juan]

On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 13:44:22 -0500
Steve Kinney <admin at pilobilus.net> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 12/7/18 11:53 PM, juan wrote:
> > 
> > 	To Steve K.
> > 
> > 	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUhFf6K-SU8
> > 
> > 	minute 55:10 snowden says that the jew york times, der spiegel, washington post and the intercept all have many unpublished documents from his 'stash'(not sure if that's the word he uses)
> > 
> > 	anyway, at this point nothing of what snowden says is 100% to be trusted, but at any rate that matches what I remembered about the documents being sort of 'distributed'....among a bunch of journo scumbags. For what it's worth.
> 
> I recall Snowden saying that he gave all the documents he had to
> Greenwald, explaining that he did not consider himself qualified to
> determine 

	
	yes, the bit about snowden kowtowing to the enlightened authority of journos is something he constantly parrots. As to who originally got the documents, I'm not sure, but in that video snowden  says that other people apart from greenwald have them now. 
	
	I don't think that makes much of a difference either way, except perhaps to illustrate the kinda obvious fact that the 'mainstream media' are part of any conspiracy there may be. 


> which were of "legitimate" public interest, or where to send
> them for publication.
> 
> Greenwald distributed the PRISM documents to several press outlets, at
> least one of which edited them before release per side by side
> comparison of published versions.  (Or, more than one version was
> distributed by Greenwald for whatever reason.)
> 
> So it seems likely that Snowden got his information about how and where
> the documents were forwarded to news outlets from Greenwald himself.


	I didn't see evidence for that. 


> Given The Intercept's track record, I know that Greenwald can not be
> trusted (check how The Intercept deliberately burned Reality Winner),


	'burning' that murderous cunt is the only good thing the intercept ever did. Regardless, I don't think that would be the main evidence of greenwald being completely untrustworthy.

	What actually gives greenwald's game away is the fact that the intercept is nothing but a mouthpiece for the worst factions of the 'democratic' party.



> and his changing stories early in the Snowden Affair indicate either
> incompetence or lies.
> 
> This leaves us to speculate about what documents were sent where, based
> on information filtered through one (Greenwald > Public) or two
> (Greenwald > Snowden > Public) unreliable sources.


	Well, if we are going to speculate (which is kinda pointless I guess), then snowden's sayings should be taken into account?


	Anyway, if judged by its results the Snowden Affair is pretty much a farce played while  the US govcorp (hello reason.com!) continues on its glorious march to world enslavement. 




> 
> :o/
> 
> 
>