Those voting for Hillary Clinton, defending Clinton and supporting
Clinton without reading the information reported by WikiLeaks are
intellectually no different than those who criticize climate science
without ever having read the science.
In short, if you defend Clinton
and ignore WikiLeaks, you have something in common with Sarah Palin. Let
that sink in for a moment. Finished processing that? Now process this —
if the journalists responsible for reporting on Watergate were labeled
“Russian sympathizers,” charged by the media as “attempting to influence
an election,” and banned from travel or communication access, how would
history judge the event?
This is exactly what has happened to Julian
Assange, who has done more for journalism than any of these
corporate-owned, brand-named media products have done this election
cycle. Either you support access to information or you have a problem
with an informed public. Which side are you on?
-Letter to the Denver Post
No comments:
Post a Comment