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?
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?