In Multipolarity

By Caitline Johnstone (Australian journalist), published on, Nov 14, 2017

The Atlantic’s online article on Nov 13, 2017 seeking to discredit Wikileaks

Everyone was buzzing about the shocking, bombshell new report by The Atlantic yesterday, which revealed that Donald Trump Jr. and the WikiLeaks Twitter account had engaged in a “largely one-sided” conversation in private messages over the course of several months.

Don Jr. actually comes off looking fairly normal in the report, while WikiLeaks comes off looking weird and sleazy in a way that will likely damage its reputation even further than the mainstream media campaign to smear the outlet already has. WikiLeaks is seen asking for favors Trump never fulfilled, making recommendations Trump Jr. didn’t act upon, and asking for leaks Trump Jr. never gave them, which when you step back and think about it are actually fairly normal things for a leak outlet to do, all things considered. But the following passage from the Atlantic report makes the whole thing look far darker: [see three Twitter message images in original article].

It is the third reason, though, Wikileaks wrote, that “is the real kicker”. “If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality,” Wikileaks explained. “That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source.”

See that full stop at the end of the last sentence there? That’s journalistic malpractice. We learned this when Donald Trump Jr. published the entirety of his private messages with WikiLeaks in response to the Atlantic article: [three Twitter messages displayed].

The author of the Atlantic article, Julia Ioffe, put a period rather than a comma at the end of the text about not wanting to appear pro-Trump or pro-Russia, and completely omitted WikiLeaks’ statement following the comma that it considers those allegations slanderous. This completely changes the way the interaction is perceived.

This is malpractice…

Read the full article at the original weblink above.

[Note to readers : A ‘DM’ is an acronym for ‘Twitter direct messages’.]

Related news:

*  Ten Trump administration atrocities going under-reported amid Russia hysteria, by Caitlin Johnstone, published on, Nov 18, 2017

Civilian killings by U.S. and allied warplanes in Iraq and Syria, 2014 to 2017 (image from Airwars website)

… Donald Trump has been facilitating the same neoliberal, neoconservative, omnicidal, ecocidal, oppressive and exploitative agendas as his predecessors, and has even kicked the death march up several notches in some key areas. One of the many, many dangers of Russiagate is that it causes those things to go unnoticed.

[This is the article in The Intercept which accepts as good coin the journalist malpractice performed by the November 13 article in The Atlantic.]:  Julian Assange’s hatred of Hillary Clinton was no secret. His advice to Donald Trump was, by Robert Mackey, The Intercept, Nov 15, 2017

The revelation that WikiLeaks secretly offered help to Donald Trump’s campaign, in a series of private Twitter messages sent to the candidate’s son Donald Trump Jr., gave ammunition to the group’s many detractors and also sparked anger from some longtime supporters of the organization and its founder, Julian Assange.

One of the most high-profile dissenters was journalist Barrett Brown, whose crowdsourced investigations of hacked corporate documents later posted on WikiLeaks led to a prison sentence. Brown had a visceral reaction to the news, first reported by The Atlantic, that WikiLeaks had been advising the Trump campaign…

[Then there is Truthdig‘s take on the matter, mild in comparison to the blast by The Intercept.]:  Can we still trust Julian Assange and WikiLeaks?, by Eric Ortiz, managing editor, Truthdig, Nov 16, 2017

… Assange has done important whistleblowing work and braved much as the leader of WikiLeaks to expose truth to power. WikiLeaks has never published a false story. However, this latest revelation about the 2016 election has disappointed some people. Time will tell if Assange and WikiLeaks can regain the public’s trust and be regarded as impartial publishers. [end commentary]


EDITOR’S NOTE: We remind our readers that publication of articles on our site does not mean that we agree with what is written. Our policy is to publish anything which we consider of interest, so as to assist our readers in forming their opinions. Sometimes we even publish articles with which we totally disagree, since we believe it is important for our readers to be informed on as wide a spectrum of views as possible.

Recent Posts
Contact Us

We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

Start typing and press Enter to search

Translate »