Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wired Responds In Manning Chat Log Controversy

Posted by timothy on from the rumbling-grumbling dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "Earlier this week Glenn Greenwald wrote in Salon about the arrest of US Army PFC Bradley Manning for allegedly acting as WikiLeaks' source and criticized Wired's failure to disclose the full chat logs between Manning and FBI informant Adrian Lamo. Now Wired's editor-in-chief Evan Hansen and senior editor Kevin Poulsen have responded to criticisms of the site's Wikileaks coverage stating that not one single fact has been brought to light suggesting Wired.com did anything wrong in pursuit of the story. 'Our position has been and remains that the logs include sensitive personal information with no bearing on Wikileaks, and it would serve no purpose to publish them at this time,' writes Hansen."

11 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. Re:yeah. well done. by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Protecting the interests of their private masters? Okay, now look. Just forget all that shit about the enemy of my enemy, or the friend of my enemy, and just recognize that you should applaud the laudable and decry that which should be cried over. Wired is here seeking to strike a blow for journalistic integrity and they should be supported in the same.

    If you want to complain, complain about how the comment is not supported by the article. In it, Wired or its staff utterly fail to take a stance on Assange's actions at all, because that's not what it's about. By responding to this particular coward you are only applying more scrutiny to his comment.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. This is what Wikileaks is all about by arcite · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The conspiracy of those in power enables them to control the status quo. Expose the conspiracy of those in power and common citizens have the possibility to change the system (they gain the knowledge of the conspiracy and are empowered by that knowledge).

    If however those in power create a conspiracy upon an individual, they gain power over them and are able to silence them, imprison them, and otherwise dispose of them until they are no longer a threat to the greater conspiracy.

    Assange has a wacky way of seeing the world, but it makes sense once you untwist the terminology he uses. A healthy Democracy can only continue to exist as long as a majority of its citizens have sufficient knowledge of what their leaders are doing and are able to hold them accountable.

  3. The thing is... by killmenow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'Our position has been and remains that the logs include sensitive personal information with no bearing on Wikileaks, and it would serve no purpose to publish them at this time,' writes Hansen.

    Notice they don't say "...the logs ARE ENTIRELY sensitive personal information..." We shouldn't have to take Hansen or Poulsen's word for it. Journalism 101: Redact the "sensitive personal information with no bearing on Wikileaks" and publish the rest.

  4. Truth, lies, chat logs... and profit levels by h00manist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    True or false, Wired has no credibility in my book since a long time ago. Some time in the early 90s, shortly after launching and becoming wildly successful, they made a clear decision - to go the route of all-out business sellouts, and away from people's needs and interests. They stopped the stories with the tone of "technology is human evolution, revolution with peace is invented", and kept only the stories to the tone of "technology is product and profit". I cancelled my subscription, since edition #2, shortly afterwards, and never cared for it much again.

    --
    Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    1. Re:Truth, lies, chat logs... and profit levels by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      away from people's needs and interests

      If you think that the innovation that hires people, increases standards of living, enables previously impossible forms of communication, and which trickles into everything from medical care to energy production is "away from people's needs and interests," then you're ... an idiot. I know it truly, truly bothers you that it's possible for someone to actually earn a living while doing something that other people want and need without doing so under the benevolent direction of someone like yourself, but ... get over it. While you're wringing your hands over a business's need to generate the income that employs its staff, pays for its bandwidth, etc., they're actually out there doing things. And if you don't like them, it doesn't cost you anything ... as opposed to what you seem to prefer: that they follow your personal editorial direction, instead of those that dedicate some of their own resources (money) in supporting Wired's editorial stance. You've already chosen not to do business with them. Great. Who have you chosen to pay to write things for you? Why aren't you talking about them, instead?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  5. We want to see the documents. by h00manist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's all we want, documents. Too many people lying. We want evidence, of which there is lots, all hidden. That's what everyone wants, and what Wikileaks gives.

    --
    Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
  6. Re:And that's what's wrong! by js3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    isn't that the same reason why wikileaks hasn't released all of the cables? hypocrite much?

    --
    did you forget to take your meds?
  7. Have you considered the possibility... by MikeRT · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That they might actually be withholding them for a good reason? Such as:

    1) They'd just make Manning look even worse to a lot of people without adding anything new or newsworthy?
    2) They contain state secrets that would get Wired in trouble if they released them?
    3) They're simply not relevant to the discussion?

    If the stuff is important to understanding Manning, I'm sure his defense counsel will subpoena it from Wired because it'll be useful in his defense. If it's not useful in his defense, then it's not newsworthy because the public already knows enough from what's been released to have a clear idea of what he is accused of doing.

    1. Re:Have you considered the possibility... by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Governments don't need secrets to operate

      Ah. So, the identity of an undercover cop who is working to bust up an organized crime operation - that should be public, right? The location and identity of people in witness protection programs - definitely public need-to-know, right?

      The timing and routes of shipments of nuclear materials - definitely something that should be easily Googled in advance, right? Encryption keys used to secure communications by South Korea as they coordinate their efforts to be ready in case North Korea tries to sink another of their ships ... absolutely no need to keep any of that secret, obviously?

      The government employment records, including household/family details, of the people who work with everything from smallpox to anthrax in NIH, NIST, military, CDC, and related labs? Definitely something that should be run past Julian Assange, for his personal decision on whether it should be public, right? The number of, and location of each shipment in the nation's strategic bauxite reserve system, and the purchase plans that foreign commodity manipulators would love to know? Definitely something that should be published overseas right before checks are written, right?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Have you considered the possibility... by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Undercover cops and witness protection programs are tools of the lazy and the weak. We enforced the law long before these concepts were invented and could continue to do so without them.

      Ah, the good ol' days, when we waited for organized, serial-crime-committing-organizations to commit yet another crims, and then lashed out with a posse and a mass lynching because we were pretty sure we had the right guys, and what the heck, stringing up half a dozen guys who look guilty is a good deterrent anyway, right?

      Do you know any history at all? Covert agents, working to enforce the law, go back thousands of years. Why? Because criminals are sneaky, and organized criminals are often even better at it. And when you think that an organization with a history of committing crimes is going to commit another one, you want to prevent it from doing so, and figure out who all the players - not just the foot soldiers you catch in the act - are.

      Or what of protecting people who testify by successfully jailing all those criminal elements who seek to do them harm?

      And you were planning on doing this how, exactly, without knowing in advancec who all of those people are, where they operate, how they move themselves and their resources around specifically to evade capture, etc? Reality doesn't want to comply with your tidy solution.

      Relying on secrets to keep these things safe is the same as putting a password on a stick note. Just plain stupid.

      By your logic, that means that there should be no passwords, just like there should be no encryption and no un-announced health inspections, or un-announced movements of nuclean materials. Just line a few hundred miles of roadways with thousands of troops! A much better idea, no question.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  8. Re:yeah. well done. by MrMarket · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you want to complain, complain about how the comment is not supported by the article. In it, Wired or its staff utterly fail to take a stance on Assange's actions at all...

    Who says Wired needs to have a stance on the matter at all? This might be before your time, but journalism used to be about telling a story, not selling an opinion.