Slashdot Mirror
Wired Responds In Manning Chat Log Controversy
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."
This just in: rape charges in foreign nation against Wired's editor-in-chief Evan Hansen have been dropped! =P
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
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.'"
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.
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.
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/
'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."
The press wants to be the SOLE "Decider" of what the people get to see. Does anyone doubt that a crime was committed by providing classified material to an unauthorized individual or organization?
The government needs to go get a warrant and execute this warrant, if it has probable cause. Without the warrant, any individual/organization doesn't have to reveal what it knows. With the warrant, Hansen and Poulsen have two choices: Cooperate or go to jail. And that's at the heart, by the way, of civil disobedience. It's that you're willing to -pay the normal punishment- for that disobedience (and not just get a slap on the wrist because you were "doing it for the right reasons".)
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/
Wired stated the following in TFA:
Not one single fact has been brought to light suggesting Wired.com did anything wrong in pursuit of this story.
I've seen this word play before. In fact, it was done by Portugal's foreign affairs minister, when discussing the issue of CIA flights passing through portuguese territory to move kidnapped "terrorists" to Guantanamo. He also repeatedly iterated that no one had any proof that these flights existed and that the Portuguese government authorized them. Yet, thanks to the cablegate posts from the US embassy in Lisbon, it has become clear that that very same minister not only knew those flights were passing through Portuguese territory, and some even making stops in Portuguese airports, but he also had an understanding with the US government that, whenever he was asked about them, he would simply iterate that there wasn't any proof they existed. And notice the subtle detail: he never said they never existed, and only claimed that no one could prove they existed. Subtle and important.
This is exactly the same approach Wired is making to this problem. Wired doesn't claim they never did so. Wired doesn't claim they are innocent nor wired's spokesperson tries to dispel the accusation. Wired only claims that no one can prove they did it. But that, as we've seen before, is not the same thing as not making them.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
They never said they didn't share the chat logs with the government. In fact, Manning was arrested after Lamo tipped off the FBI about his confessions. I presume Lamo gave the FBI the same chat logs he gave Poulsen. This is about sharing the chat logs with everybody else.
When The New York Times ran an entirely appropriate and well reported profile of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange — discussing his personality and his contentious leadership style — Greenwald railed against the newspaper, terming the reporters “Nixonian henchmen.”
Similarly, when Assange complained that journalists were violating his privacy by reporting the details of rape and molestation allegations against him in Sweden, Greenwald agreed, writing: “Simultaneously advocating government transparency and individual privacy isn’t hypocritical or inconsistent; it’s a key for basic liberty.”
With Manning, Greenwald adopts the polar opposite opinions. “Journalists should be about disclosing facts, not protecting anyone.” This dissonance in his views has only grown in the wake of reports that Manning might be offered a plea deal in exchange for testimony against Assange.
I don't know whether or not Wired is guilty or innocent here. But it seems they've got a fair point about Greenwald, and it seems fair to give them the benefit of the doubt.
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.
Anyway, at one point during the panel I recall someone asking him how he came to know Manning; his response was that Manning found him after reading a little about him online, and then proceeded share a lot of "personal things" with him. The insinuation seemed to be that it wasn't anything as simple as moral opposition to the war or his role in it; the fact that Lamo left it so open and wouldn't go into details seemed to me that Manning may be gay, and was struggling to deal with being a closeted member of the military under DADT policy. If you check Lamo's Wikipedia page, it classified him as being an "LGBT person from the United States". Maybe Manning spoke at length to Lamo about being a closested homosexual, and the frustrations that came with it, especially being in the military?
I could be way off here, but maybe the reason they don't want to release the logs is more to protect Bradley Manning's right not to be outed, or to have other potentially "embarrassing" things revealed about his private life that are irrelevant to the rest of the case.
One of the key complaints by Greenwald is that Wired redacted parts that did not contain "sensitive personal information". The Washington Post and BoingBoing have either full or partial copies of the logs and have published sections that Wired did not include. And guess what... they extra parts they published aren't sensitive personal information.
Firedog Lake put together a merged transcript of what has been published so far and you can decide for yourself whether Wired should have redacted it. I believe most of the relevant part is from May 22.
http://firedoglake.com/merged-manning-lamo-chat-logs/
I believe Greenwald is also asserting that Lamo has been making claims that are not substantiated by the logs that have been released. One key claim has to do with whether or not Assange provided assistance to Manning in obtaining the classified documents. Greenwald's article states Lamo said:
"Manning explicitly told him in these chats that he had help from Assange and from WikiLeaks 'intermediaries' in Boston."
That's important because the government is trying to build a conspiracy case against Assange. The logs would help to clarify what Lamo is saying since Lamo previously said Manning never explicity said he had support.
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.
Wired editor Kevin Poulsen is employed by the United States government as an FBI informant. To characterize him as an impartial journalist in search of the truth is comical.
Glenn Greenwald eviscerates this latest Wired tripe here: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/29/wired_1/index.html
I suggest everyone reading this write to Wired and express your disgust with their shoddy journalism with regards to the Bradley Manning case.
I find laziness to be an excellent motivator.