It's been incredibly frustrating to watch people I respect and care about cling to Team Clinton's PR line, that the Democrats lost the US Prez election in 2016 because the winner colluded with the government of a rival power, rather than because when faced with a populist far-right candidate (an effective liar), they ran roughshod over a populist centre-left candidate (not a liar), sometimes in violation of their own rules of process, to run a lame duck, centre-right candidate (a bad liar).
Now the Mueller report is out, will they accept reality, or double down? Will the Democrats field a candidate for 2020 who is actually somewhere on the left, not just paying lip service to buy votes (a lot of the current field if you look at their political history further back than 2016)? Or will they lap up the Clintonite dribble claiming that a candidate the left can vote for without feeling like they're swallowing a dead rat, can only be a repeat of McGovern in 1972?
@MatejLach this is a very convenient line to run, since the full report cannot and will not be released publicly. A Special Counsel has (as the name suggests) has special powers to rifle through the sock drawers of the accused to see if they've stashed any smoking guns there. Publishing the report would be a total violation of the privacy of the accused, and an abuse of the powers of the Special Counsel. I wouldn't shed many tears for Trump, but unlike him, I think principles are important.
@strypey Agreed. I predict them running with the 'there's a smoking gun behind the retractions' till 2020, boosting Trump who can legitimately claim witch hunt.
But to me, the more raveling thing is just how quickly 'the Russians' have become #1 baddies again, (coming from people horrified by Trump's descriptions of Mexicans btw) & also how short sighted people are with regards to prosecuting WikiLeaks - that will be a disaster if it ever happens, for all journalists.
@MatejLach the new #ColdWar rhetoric makes the neocons behind it stand out like dogs balls. It's only focused on Russia and not China because Russians are "white", so it's less obviously xenophobic. I mean, both Russia and China are terrorist empires that imprison and murder people with impunity (remember #PussyRiot, remember the new #CulturalRevolution going on in Tibet, and now Xinjian too). But so is the USA (remember the invasions of Aghanistan and Iraq, #Guantanamo is still open, etc) :(
@MatejLach any Democrat candidate that doesn't acknowledge the US-led war crimes of the last couple of decades, and points the bone at Russia *or* China as a Weapon of Mass Distraction, is a hypocrite and a liar. Aside from that, the US left needs to be looking very carefully at the voting records of a lot of the newly-minted "leftists" who are aping Bernie's campaign as a cynical PR strategy. Remember Obama? The guy who said "we can!" and signed off on numerous homicides by drone strike?
@MatejLach as for #WikiLeaks survived the sex abuse allegations against Assange and years in exile. They're remarkably resilient. Besides, they've shown us a proof-of-concept for a new model of journalism, and some of it's failure modes. We ought to be setting up a number of WikiLeaks style operations, ideally using some kind of decentralized platform and trying to pull off the crowdsourcing vision I remember them beginning with, when I was still with #Indymedia.
@bob the problem is there's a zerosum choice between a) an anonymous crowd and b) a set of identifiable humans who can be Assanged.
> Turning raw data into journalism requires a lot of work and that's not something which can easily be crowdsourced
I don' think WikiLeaks every really had the chance to try, because anyone who might have been sympathetic was too busy working on bootstrapping then-new projects like #Indymedia, #Wikipedia, #Slashdot, #CreativeCommons etc
> the premise that showing the public The Truth, or some approximation of it, would change the policies of governments didn't turn out to be true.
I agree with this to some degree, and I noticed it with #Indymedia as well. The information and evidence has to be packaged in a Story, and someone has to tell that Story first (with WikiLeaks it ended up being Assange and the #Guardian), and a social movement(s) need to retell that Story as part of a call-to-action.
@bob but I wouldn't say that WikiLeaks hasn't been effective. A lot of the other whistleblowers that came forward since they started (Manning, Snowden etc) may never had done so without that example. Various journalists in the adware news media (eg the Guardian but also others) got braver about actually doing journalism, instead of cheerleading for their preferred version of corporate globalization. Policy has been softened, at least to some degree, because of the backlash.
Absolutely, however WL is still a remarkably successful project, considering all its detractors. Unlike the likes of the #Guardian, it never really had to retract what it published, which is all the more remarkable, because false leaks were used all the time to try to discredit them as unreliable.
As for the public needing a packaged Story however, that's sadly true, I mean part of the reason Maddow was #1 with Russiagate was because it was a good Story, even if false.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!