oversizedhat

I find it hard to believe that you and your organization have no ties to the Russian government and that you were not part of a disinformation campaign to attempt to get Donald Trump elected.

During your staff's AMA two months ago, one of your staff members stated the following:

We were not publishing with a goal to get any specific candidate elected. We were publishing with the one goal of making the elections as transparent as possible. We published what we received. I know that many media, including the New York Times, did editorially back one candidate over another. We didnt and havent. We would have published on any candidate. We still will if we get the submissions.

If you truly weren't being objective or had no horse in the race, then why would the Wikileaks Twitter account have a "poll" about Hillary's health? Or why would your site be selling T-shirts about Bill Clinton "dicking bimbos". Or maybe you'd like to comment on the Pizza Gate fiasco and the "Spirit Cooking" garbage? This sort of stuff is hardly not objective and it is journalistic hackery at its finest.

Every source of every journalist has an intention and an agenda, may it be hidden or clear.

And there we have it, you say it right there. It is beyond a doubt, that your organization, as a media outlet, clearly has an agenda. The only difference between Wikileaks and MSM outlets is that it's generally clear what the MSM agenda is. All your organization does is sit there on a pedestal and obfuscate your agenda behind the veil of "let's make the world a more transparent place", all the while picking and choosing what to drop to carefully craft a narrative. Please.

How often do near misses happen to airborne aircraft?

Hi all.

With a seemingly tech ignorant Congress in place, where do you see the way forward in placing a national priority in updating cybersecurity infrastructure and education?