Another leak in the Russian hacking scandal, this time a hard copy from the National Security Agency perpetually showing that hackers attempted to infiltrate into voting systems before the election. It’s not entirely clear whether the attempts were successful in changing the votes, nonetheless this may be the clearest evidence that Russia attempted to influence the election through hacking and perhaps by changing the votes. So why was it leaked to the Intercept?
This is not to say that the Intercept is not a credible media outlet but it is also home to Glenn Greenwald who happens to be one of the most vocal skeptics of the Russia hacking narrative. Since the intelligence agencies and news media began reporting on the purported interference in the 2016 election, Greenwald has used his growing platform to dissuade his followers from believing any aspect of the assessment. Why the skepticism? Because the government hasn’t released any hard evidence that Russia was involved in any way with hacking the DNC or delivering John Podesta’s emails to Wikileaks, that the need for discretion with the highly classified material was for the birds.
Of course it is important to stress that few items from the media or government should be accepted fully at face value, except Greenwald has instead cultivated an audience that not only question everything reported about Russia but to only accept his view and outright dismiss anybody and everybody that accepts the hacking story. Almost every story published by the Intercept is littered with comments by its readers lambasting either the mainstream media or intelligence agencies for continuing to believe the narrative; some have even gone as far to label believers as xenophobes or calling the coverage anti-Russian.
This latest article about the leak that the Intercept exclusively received has not been immune to these criticisms with accusations that the publication is venturing into mainstream media territory or rejecting that this evidence implicates Russia in any way. Some have gone as far as to imitate President Donald Trump and call it fake news, claiming it is planted information by the CIA or FBI. Most believe that it is to distract from Hillary Clinton losing the election or stealing the nomination from Senator Bernie Sanders, other popular lines from the unpopular President.
Based on this wealth of skepticism and willful ignorance the Intercept was still the recipient of this potentially bombshell revelation which again begs the question, why? The accused leaker, 25-year old government contractor Reality Leigh Winner, has already been arrested and charged with leaking the information to the press, making her efforts almost futile given that a majority of its readers rejected the evidence within moments of the article being posted. For Winner to risk her freedom means she could have been motivated by either a sense of obligation to set the record straight, to try to prove that evidence of Russian hacking and interference does actually exist, or simply as a fleeting spot in the limelight in an era of endless leaks.
Regardless, Greenwald remains skeptical and may or may not have more to say on the matter in the coming days. If and when more evidences comes out implicating Russia in the hacking of the election, Greenwald will surely deny that he belittled the investigation or actively reared a cohort of deniers from ever accepting any proof of interference by the former Soviet Union. He’ll merely hide behind his hackneyed perception as a renowned skeptic of the government and media and call skepticism a healthy and necessary aspect to consuming the news, dismissing the fact that too much skepticism makes for a blind audience of spouting conspiracy theories. The damage has been done, there is no need to take responsibility for their adulteration, so long as they continue to read the Intercept and spread his falsehoods.
