wikileaks publishes leaked documents. they're propaganda in the sense that they present information under an ethos meant to serve an ideological purpose, but that's a meaning so broad that cnn and npr also easily fall under it. if you take issue with the veracity of what they've published, make a case, but otherwise, calling something 'propaganda' and thinking that alone is somehow a knock to its value or truth is meaningless.
i'm totally willing to believe that russia obtained the emails and gave them to wikileaks -- it's far from proven, at least on the public side of discourse, but it makes sense and doesn't seem impossible or bullshitty to me. but that doesn't mean that the emails aren't real. it's foolish to cover your ears and ignore things just because someone you don't like said it.
wikileaks has also published much, much more than the dnc/podesta emails, from a very wide variety of sources.
>i'm totally willing to believe that russia obtained the emails and gave them to wikileaks -- it's far from proven, at least on the public side of discourse, but it makes sense and doesn't seem impossible or bullshitty to me
Yet we've seen zero evidence for it. Blaming Russia is convenient for DNC since it shifts the dialogue from the emails to "evil empire" that's supposedly behind it. First, they attempted to claim that emails have been tampered with and then when DKIM signatures proved that hypothesis wrong, they shifted their tactics.
Funniest part of that whole election was the claim by Dems that Trump has some kind of a secret server that communicates with Russians. Laughable. It's all just a misdirection.
there were also, iirc, at least six other private security companies that came to the same conclusion, who weren't hired by the dnc. additionally, every US intelligence agency backed up the claim.
again, not a proven statement, but there's a substantial amount of evidence we're aware of.
>First, they attempted to claim that emails have been tampered with and then when DKIM signatures proved that hypothesis wrong, they shifted their tactics.
do you have a source for the first part? afaik it was just twitter randos floating the idea
i'm not a partisan in this fight. i didn't vote, i despised both candidates, but i also think both sides can be a little blind in their eagerness to paint the other as disingenuous. i'm very interested in this subject and it's one i've followed closely, and i'm reasonably sure russian state actors were behind the dnc and podesta hacks, but i also think it's worth keeping an open mind as a general principle and not to be blinded by ideological alliances.
i'm totally willing to believe that russia obtained the emails and gave them to wikileaks -- it's far from proven, at least on the public side of discourse, but it makes sense and doesn't seem impossible or bullshitty to me. but that doesn't mean that the emails aren't real. it's foolish to cover your ears and ignore things just because someone you don't like said it.
wikileaks has also published much, much more than the dnc/podesta emails, from a very wide variety of sources.