> Do you really not see this? No amount of "Assange is not a journalist!" Can possibly work unless you also make the New York Times journalists not journalists.
Wikileaks chucked what they received up on a web page. They're "journalists" in the same sense that the guy running the printing presses at the NYT is "a journalist".
>Wikileaks chucked what they received up on a web page
After partnering with the New York Times, The Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais, redacting anything putting people in danger and inviting the US Govt to tell them anything they wanted redacted (who did not suggest a single redaction, nothing) and then writing their own stories on it then, yes, they did put the source materials on the website so you /you/ can decide their and their partners' reporting is accurate, all of whom linked to specific source documents in their stories. About the Afghanistan war there doesn't seem much doubt anymore does there? Another decade of increased resources got nowhere with President Trump, then President Biden and a majority of Americans agreeing that it is a failed mission and withdrawal the correct option. The level corruption involved, snouts in the trough, is astounding.
The quantity of lies about Wikileaks is also astounding. They're as much like the printing press operators as your favorite goldfish. I doubt you're deliberately lying and pretending they didn't redact documents, nor partner with newspapers, nor write their own stories and you actually believe what you wrote there. How badly have you been lied to, it's astounding, huh? Why? Do you think another expensive in lives and money decade of the Afghanistan war had anything to do with it? Who did that benefit? The answer is many different parties for many different reasons all of whom /hated/ being called on it with very strong, published evidence.
Wikileaks chucked what they received up on a web page. They're "journalists" in the same sense that the guy running the printing presses at the NYT is "a journalist".