What If Manning Had Leaked To the New York Times?

New submitter minstrelmike points outs a two-page editorial in the NYTimes "about what would have been different legally, morally, and security-wise," had the military information released through WikiLeaks been published by the Times instead. "'If Manning had delivered his material to The Times, WikiLeaks would not have been able to post the unedited cables, as it ultimately did, heedless of the risk to human rights advocates, dissidents and informants named therein. In fact, you might not have heard of WikiLeaks. The group has had other middling scoops, but Manning put it on the map.' The writers also discusses what the Times would and would not have done, admitting they probably wouldn't have shared with other news outlets, but also admitting they would definitely have not shared everything."

Comments

Assumptions

[Anonymous Coward]

Spin:
"heedless of the risk to human rights advocates, dissidents and informants named therein"

Reality:
http://www.collateralmurder.com/

Re:Assumptions

[Joce640k]

And it wasn't WikiLeaks who published the unedited cables. Wikileaks was careful to redact the ones they published.

It was a Guardian Newspaper journalist who published the secret decryption key to the 'insurance' file and gave everybody access.

Re:Assumptions

[TapeCutter]

Wikileaks was careful to redact the ones they published.

Yep, WL spent a couple of months redacting informants names, the Guardian, Der Speigel, and (you guessed it), the NYT, all worked on the reactions together. All 4 organizations then published the story at the same time. But at the end of the day all 4 organizations are competitors, so I'll just file it under editorial sour grapes.

Hear the answer from Manning himself

[FriendlyLurker]

"A full audio recording of the whistleblower is released today despite a court prohibition on such recordings"

Heedless of the risk

[bill_mcgonigle]

WikiLeaks would not have been able to post the unedited cables, as it ultimately did, heedless of the risk to human rights advocates

That's one whopper of a half truth.

Re:Left wing bird cage liner

[NatasRevol]

Be careful what you wish for.

We could always move the tax rates back to where they were when Reagan was in office.

It might actually pay for all of our military traipsing around the world.

Re:Manning is a Hero and a Traitor

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel the same way, except I believe the cables should have been edited for names of the innocent and so on.

They were. Wikileaks didn't release the unedited cables, and I doubt Manning would have been willing to leak them without assurance that they would redact dangerous information. The problem was that "respectable newspapers" (The New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel) were involved in the redaction process, and The Guardian used the opportunity for a scoop. Maybe NYT is more trustworthy than The Guardian - I don't know - but it is deeply ironic that they are using this of all things as an example of being better "legally, morally, and security-wise" than Wikileaks when Wikileaks's only shortcoming was involving the likes of NYT in the first place.

Re:Left wing bird cage liner

[h4rr4r]

Also wealth redistribution can be good for an economy. It is what made the USA the powerhouse it was. WW2 and the programs of the great depression moved lots of money into the hand of the new middle class, they spent that money thus driving the economy. A single rich person has only so many needs they will spend money on, taking that money and giving it to people who will spend it will improve the economy. Today we see the reverse with a shrinking middle class and a slowing economy as wealth accumulates in the hands of a small few.

These are just facts, they have nothing to do with the morality of such action.

Re:Quite simply lies

[QRDeNameland]

There is absolutely no way NYT would have touched Manning's cable archives. They would have feigned interest and then shopped him. Bill Keller knows this.

The OP is the biggest piece of self-serving balderdash I've read in weeks. It's nauseating, and teeming with distortions and outright lies about Manning and Wikileaks.

Lest we forget...Bill Keller was the executive editor of the NYT from 2003 to 2011, and perhaps the most telling decision of his tenure was to delay the story on NSA wiretapping for over a year, until well after the 2004 election. (OK, we don't know the timing for sure, because Keller has refused to any questions about it.)

IMHO, the man is a tool, pure and simple.