Actually, here's my biggest beef with Greenwald's criticism:"At this point, Greenwald had just finished typing approximately 1000 paragraphs on why Lano's account of anything can't be trusted, and indeed Lano has already been caught in several untruths and exaggerations about the chat logs, including the New York Times. Yet Greenwald turns around and concludes that Lano isn't lying and that Wired is deliberately concealing relevant parts of the discussion?" Following up with: It's pretty clear that Wired is denying that they've improperly culled the logs. Their position is clearly that Lamo is either fabricating his claims that they've left relevant stuff our or he is mis-remembering what is there, as he did in a recent NYT piece. I think the rest of their response IS highly relevant. It's understandeable that they don't directly address Greenwald's question, as it follow a long criticism of Poulsen and Lamo. Why should Wired just ignore the majority of the piece for one paragraph?
"This part of Wired's conduct deserves a lot more attention. First, in his interview with me, Lamo claimed that all sorts of things took place in the discussion between him and Manning that are (a) extremely relevant to what happened, (b) have nothing to do with Manning's personal issues or sensitive national security secrets, and yet (c) are nowhere to be found in the chat logs published by Wired. That means either that Lamo is lying about what was said or Wired is concealing highly relevant aspects of their discussions. Included among that is Manning's explanation about how he found Lamo and why he contacted him, Manning's alleged claim that his "intention was to cripple the United States' foreign relations for the foreseeable future," and discussions they had about the capacity in which they were speaking.
We have already published substantial excerpts from the logs, but critics continue to challenge us to reveal all, ostensibly to fact-check some statements that Lamo has made in the press summarizing portions of the logs from memory (his computer hard drive was confiscated, and he no longer has a copy).I also dispute that the waste of $10 called heykevinpoulsen.com correctly summarizes the "critical issue" in Greenwald's piece. Here's the thesis statement:
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.
That doesn’t mean we’ll never publish them, but before taking an irrevocable action that could harm an individual’s privacy, we have to weigh that person’s privacy interest against news value and relevance.
For more than six months, Wired's Senior Editor Kevin Poulsen has possessed -- but refuses to publish -- the key evidence in one of the year's most significant political stories:Greenwald is clearly asking for the full transcripts to be published. Full stop. None of this "confirm or deny" bullshit.
Wired, could we get a third-party opinion to confirm your belief that the transcripts shouldn't be released in full? Perhaps a couple of j-school profs could review the material, and decide independently which parts would help other journalists covering this story?posted by mike_bling at 5:12 PM on December 29, 2010 [2 favorites]
It has beenposted by scalefree at 5:22 PM on December 29, 2010 [1 favorite]threezero days since the last WikiLeaks post.
* Special note: No notepads, pens, phones, tape recorders, or other useful documentation devices are allowed into the brig’s visitation rooms. For this reason the key points of my conversations with Manning, his explicit replies to questions regarding confinement, were temporarily stored mentally through repetition. I am fortunate that many of his replies could be summed up in very few words. When visiting hours conclude I create a voice memo with a brain-dump of the meeting that just took place. I’ll try to get the relevant recordings online in the next few days. Aside from that, I encourage any curious parties to file an FOIA request for the government-curated audio tapes created in brig visitation room #2 on December 18 and December 19 2010 from 1:00pm – 3:00pm.posted by enn at 6:55 PM on December 29, 2010 [3 favorites]
MMMMMMMCCCCCCEEEEEEEEMMMMMMMCCCCCCEEEEEEEEPPPPPPPPPPPPAPPAPPAAAPAPPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMCCCCCCEEEEEEEEPPPPPPPPPPPPAPPAPPAAAPAPPAAAAAAAAAAAAAACKevin and Evan both independently verified that in the unpublished portions of the chat logs between Adrian Lamo and Bradly Manning there is no further reference to private FTP servers, and no further discussion about the relationship between Manning and Assange.posted by kipmanley at 9:27 PM on December 29, 2010 [9 favorites]
That's kind of a big deal, because the published portions of the logs do not support or back up the statements Adrian Lamo seems to have been making. And that would mean that his claims are based solely on opinion, not based on evidence in the chat logs.
$ echo "HELLO THERE" > testfile.txt $ ls -al testfile.txt -rw-r--r-- 1 mrbill staff 12 Dec 30 00:36 testfile.txt $ touch -t 197411051200 testfile.txt $ ls -al testfile.txt -rw-r--r-- 1 mrbill staff 12 Nov 5 1974 testfile.txt
An article on Dec. 16 about the possibility of prosecuting Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, after his Web site disclosed classified government documents referred incorrectly to Wired magazine’s publishing of excerpts of Internet chat logs that may be relevant to the investigation. The excerpts, recording online conversations between the main suspect in the leaks, Pvt. Bradley Manning, and an ex-hacker who turned him in, Adrian Lamo, do in fact contain references to communications between Mr. Assange and Private Manning, and to a server for uploading files to WikiLeaks. It is not the case that Wired’s excerpts omitted mention of such contacts.Kevin Poulsen tweeted
Though we didn’t report it ourselves, Greenwald argues that we have a duty to publicly refute the theory. In his world, our consideration, thus far, of Manning’s privacy leaves us with an obligation to chase down every story on Manning, correct any errors, and refute any reporting that we disagree with.As to my own agenda. I have no iron in the fire beyond my own personal views, which I've previously stated.
He is, again, wrong. Our obligation is to report the news accurately and fairly. We’re responsible only for what appears on Wired.com. And our record on WikiLeaks and Manning is unblemished.
In restoring the quote one can must note that the evidence does not match Greenwald's claim.
Its reporters, including Ryan Singel and others, have sent emails with lavish praise. After my first article about Wired in June, Singel emailed me to defend Poulsen and contest my objections but wrote: "I’ve long been a fan of your work and I’ll continue to be, but I think you screwed this up, Glenn, and it’s pretty disappointing that you seemed to let your infatuation with Wikileaks color your analysis.
–adjectiveSingel is not bestowing a profusion of praise, he is adding another criticism based on the inconsistency between his longstanding views about Greenwald and Greenwald's conduct in this matter.
1. expended, bestowed, or occurring in profusion: lavish spending.
2. using or giving in great amounts; prodigal (often fol. by of): lavish of his time; lavish of affection.
–verb (used with object)
3. to expend or give in great amounts or without limit: to lavish gifts on a person.
The omission and full stop period remove any doubts the reader may have and leave it able to be read only one way. The way Greenwald wants it read.is obviously and self-reflexively not true. If it could only be read one way, then how is humanfont making a totally oppositional reading? Either Greenwald is really sloppy and stupid in which case there is nothing to fear from his obvious distortions, or humanfont is much, much smarter than everyone else. Neither interpretation satisfies.
« Older What does it mean to be Canadian? It isn't about a... | Mother of disabled children ch... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Jimbob at 2:38 PM on December 29, 2010 [6 favorites]