I consider myself a fairly objective and level headed person, and I’m cautious about subscribing to conspiratorial ‘seek out evidence that confirms your existing world view’ type thinking.
With that said – this post does do exactly that.
There is an already existing narrative that Wikileaks is working with either or both Russia and/or Trump’s campaign to get Trump elected.
We can see this with a list of Google’s search suggestions:
Wikileaks deny that they’re partisan in their leaks.
This CBS news article summarises the recent Wikileaks Reddit AMA, where the Wikileaks staff were asked about colluding with the Trump campaign and Russia.
Q. Many people have suggested that WikiLeaks was brazenly partisan in this election and colluded with Team Trump (and by extension, Russia). Just today a top Russian ally to Putin is quoted as saying Russia did not interfere in the election but “maybe helped a bit with WikiLeaks”.1
A. The allegations that we have colluded with Trump, or any other candidate for that matter, or with Russia, are just groundless and false. We receive information anonymously, through an anonymous submission platform. We do not need to know the identity of the source, neither do we want to know it.
Q. Why do you only seem to have information on Democrats?
If you were as Noble as you say you would believe in government accountability at all levels, not just for one party.
A. To date, we have not received information on Donald Trump’s campaign, or other campaigns. If it were to be submitted now we would happily publish it.
Wikileaks are making the argument that they’re simply publishing what leaked information they have, and that they only have information leaked from the Democratic party. Nothing partisan here.
But I think their Facebook page demonstrates posts that go beyond non-partisan leaking of the information that they purport to be doing.
The first thing you’ll notice that almost all of their posts in the months of November and December are to do with the Clintons or the Democrats.
A lot of their of their posts are neutral email dumps:
Or they’re linking to articles that discuss the leaked emails:
But here already, there’s a narrative being pushed. Is it really within the scope of Wikileaks to tell us what we should think of the emails?
Wikileaks also posts links to content that is plain opinon – for example:
This has nothing to do with leaked data at all – but Wikileaks do appear to be publishing one particular narrative.
This posts has nothing to do with leaking data – it’s reporting on how Americans feel. Given that you can find polls that suggest ~50% of Americans don’t believe climate change is caused by humans, or that ~40% of Americans believe the Earth is only 10,000 years old, this isn’t a particularly noteworthy report. It looks like a disingenuous ploy to push a narrative.
This is commenting on politics. Why did Wikileaks feel the need to publish this?
It seems like an out and out partisan statement, that you’d expect from a Fox News pundit or a republican. It’s also not factually true- PRISM started in 2007 for example, before Obama was elected.
Now perhaps – there genuinely is some conspiracy by the Democratic political establishment, and Wikileaks is doing the honorable thing by exposing it. But that’s a different story.
I think it’s fair to say that Wikileaks has a axe to grind for the Democratic party – it’s not just a matter of neutrally exposing leaked data.
The comments on Wikileaks have also been interesting:
There are a lot of ‘Thank you Wikileaks’ type comments. Given that there’s evidence that a lot of the support for Trump on social media is apparently bots, it’s plausible that the same thing is happening here too. But I don’t know enough about how we analyse whether an account is a bot or not, but it’s something to consider.
Wikileaks’ role in the 2016 Election does flip the script a little. From Wikileaks being the hero of the radical left or anarchists, it’s all of a sudden being cheered for by the radical right.
As a final note, here’s an John Pilger asking Julian Assange just about this – here it is: