My heart sank when I saw that WikiLeaks was going after the CIA.

So predictable, I wrote on Twitter. We must be getting close to the smoking gun in the connection between Trump and Russia. They know it, so now Putin is dumping his oppo research file on the CIA and using his mouthpiece Julian Assange to rep it.

Last summer when the DNC emails were coming out I pleaded with friends in academic journalism, let's run seminars for reporters on the technology of email, to build confidence so their reports will be more accurate, but it went nowhere and the result was devastating. 

Now here we are again. 

Then I read this morning a column in the NYT by Zeynep Tufekci, saying that the press was naively accepting Assange's interpretation of what the CIA leaks mean, and no surprise to me, he's lying about their significance. Too late, the press is reporting otherwise. Then on a walk this afternoon I listened to the excellent Daily podcast, also from the NYT, that as Tufekci predicted they would, accepted Assange's premise.

Look at how the press waits until the CBO scores the Republican health bill before passing judgement. Clearly we need something like the CBO to evaluate Wikileaks type claims. People who have reps to lose, have deep technical backgrounds and know how to ask the questions, if they don't have expertise on a specific subject. So reporters aren't out there on their own, trusting someone so wholly untrustworthy as Assange. Something like Snopes or ProPublica, to take the time to evaluate the claim, and while they're deliberating the press will know to withhold judgement.