

Greenwald Responds to Wired - zzzeek
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/29/wired_response_1

======
Bud
Here is the companion post, which addresses the more substantive issues:

[http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/index.html?story=/opinio...](http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/12/29/wired_1)

I've put in on HN, here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2049449>

If you think this is only about "drama", you're sorely misled. This is about
journalism, and about whether we have any journalists left that will examine
the Wikileaks issues with some rigor, as opposed to grade-school attacks on
the messenger and Palinesque distraction tactics.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Putting aside the political slant of your comment, please educate me. Quite
honestly it all looks like a drama-of-the-week from where I sit.

What feature of journalism is under attack to warrant all this hub-bub? And in
your response, please remember whom the Pulitzer prize was named for.

------
YuriNiyazov
This is my foray into writing completely speculative theories on a message
board, but what the hell, gotta start sometime.

<rant>

1) Not speculative: Manning is gay - the media already made a huge deal out of
this.

2) Somewhat speculative - Lamo is gay - from
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Lamo> \- "Lamo was appointed to the
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Questioning Youth Task Force by
San Francisco Supervisor Tom Ammiano"

3) Completely speculative - Manning contacted Lamo on the basis of talking to
someone who would understand.

4) Completely speculative - So far, there's no direct evidence that Manning's
leaking the documents has anything to do with him being gay, and only complete
right-wing nuts (e.g. <http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/31575>)
claim that. If there's something in the chat logs that says "I am gay, I
leaked the documents because I hate the US and the Army's policy on treating
gays, and I hope you (Adrian Lamo) understand", then there's direct evidence.
Repealing DADT was already extremely controversial, and if Wired released
those chat logs when they first acquired them, it would've made the discussion
even more explosive. (never mind the argument that being dissatisfied in the
army because of DADT is a reason to repeal DADT.) The repeal of DADT passed.
Had Wired released those chat logs, it might not have. Assuming that editors
at Wired and their general audience is left-leaning (somewhat speculative - I
lean to the left, so do my friends, we read Wired), they wouldn't want to do
anything that might interfere with the repeal of DADT, especially something
like providing a link between Manning's sexual orientation and him leaking the
cables.

<rant>

------
djcapelis
I think both Wired and Greenwald are operating ethically. Greenwald is right
to be, as a reporter, skeptical and demanding of more evidence. Wired,
unfortunately, is caught in a position where they may well be acting
completely ethically but can't explain why without violating someone's privacy
and trust.

They both may be doing the right thing here. I hope I am right and we really
do have two pretty good journalistic organizations operating with good
intentions.

~~~
extension
Can you elaborate on your theory of why Wired is justified in withholding the
chat logs? What about the matter of not disclosing all ties to their sources
-- do you think there is an ethical reason for that? Why counter-attack
Greenwald if they know his accusations are justified, from the public
perspective?

~~~
gojomo
Imagine the portions of the logs not released by Wired and the Washington Post
include Manning discussing his sex life, opinions about other as-yet-
uninvolved private individuals or active duty personnel, medical/psychological
details, or cable contents even Wikileaks hasn't (and might choose not to)
release. Further, that the logs aren't conclusive either way on Lamo's other
statements, perhaps because the logs Wired has are only some of the
Manning/Lamo communication.

Then Poulsen/Wired's selective disclosure is perfectly reasonable, and there's
no journalistic obligation to play '20 questions' confirming/denying every
hunch Greenwald has about the logs, or release a meticulously 'redacted' set
of logs which could just set off more wild speculation about the redacted
regions.

They made a call about what excerpts were newsworthy, and have stuck to it.
Even if they erred around the edges, with a few other sentences having some
interest to those with a compulsive interest in coloring in every detail —
well, opinions vary and errors happen. It wouldn't help to trickle out new
marginal details in response to Greenwald's barbs.

~~~
extension
What personal private details could outweigh critical info about a _huge_ news
story? If they really are compromising their integrity as journalists to be
good loyal friends, they can expect and deserve to be criticized as bad
journalists.

And if they refuse to even explain themselves then nobody can be blamed for
assuming the worst. And I can imagine scenarios worse than just protecting
someone's privacy. The "we can't tell you why we can't tell you" excuse is as
good as nothing.

~~~
gojomo
Are you suggesting that once a news story is 'huge' it outweighs any claim to
privacy involved individuals might have? Neither Wired nor Greenwald believes
that.

I gave examples of the kinds of personal info that might justify privscy-
preserving selective log publishing: sex life, discussion of uninvolved peers,
and medical/psychological details. Your imagination should be able to fill in
the rest.

Wired has explained themselves and no part of their explanation talks about
being 'good loyal friends'.

------
mikeryan
I think after 1 post and 2 exchanges the only appropriate resolution to this
debate is a duel between the participants.

~~~
dragmorp
I absolutely hate when people respond to a legitimate debate this way.

~~~
borism
It's not that debate is bad, it's that debate's duration should be finite.

Unfortunately in this day and age of endless interweb debates, duel does seem
like a reasonable idea.

------
Athtar
I honestly don't know all the story to comment about the accuracy but one
thing I can say though:

After reading Greenwald's original post and his response to Wired's response,
he comes off a calm. measured and rational. Wired, on the other hand, comes
off defensive and argumentative. Seems like they are more interested in taking
shots at Greenwald instead of addressing the issues he raised.

------
logic
Why do I get the feeling this is going to go on for quite some time?

On the other hand, I'm sure this is doing wonders for both Salon and Wired's
visitor numbers.

~~~
cma
It should at least be more interesting than a Techcrunch "scandal".

------
shareme
I think Wired will get burned by the Manning case..

When a writer gets involved in the story we call it Gonzo Journalism..but
usually when that is the case..its claimed upfront...

In this case Wired wants to hide the fact of a writer being fully involved in
the story and claim its due to personal privacy..

~~~
Bud
I tend to agree. It's a tad hard to see how personal privacy concerns require
redaction of 75% of the material, unless the people chatting are romantically
involved. If that is the case, then I officially withdraw my objections. :)

~~~
djcapelis
There's another explanation that is reasonable but Wired can't even talk about
without someone's privacy being damaged.

It sucks that they're in this bind. I believe they are acting ethically.

~~~
gbhn
Thanks for your endorsement. How do you square that, then, with the
irresponsible attacks on Greenwald? Why don't they just come out and say
precisely this? A response saying "Yes, it sucks that we're not releasing
more, and we know why it's sensible to ask, but we have other priorities and
for now we think we're making a balanced choice." would be a lot more
respectable.

It'd be even better if they'd identify in advance some change in the situation
which would alter the equation such that they'd be willing to release more.
Outsiders could then better gauge what kind of trade-off they're making, and
it also gives an accountability horizon such that outsiders can later on
assess whether they made the right trade-off. That's a much easier pill to
swallow than "We're right, now shut up and go away."

~~~
djcapelis
Weren't their earlier responses pretty much that?

There's also a duel of personalities going on and neither side is being
terrible graceful. I wish neither side would find need to talk badly of the
other, but welcome to modern media? :/

~~~
nekoniaow
It's interesting how people can read articles yet miss entirely their
substance.

Greenwald has noted a number of inconsistencies in Lamo's declarations,
inconsistencies which have enormous potential consequences for the evolution
of the case, notably whether Assange can be considered an accomplice of
Manning. Some of his further investigations also reveal that one of the
Justice Department officials which investigated Poulsen has very close ties
with Lamo, Poulsen and Wired in general.

All of this raises important questions regarding the validity of Poulsen's
reporting and the credibility of Lamo's current public testimony. Hence he
demands Wired to publish the parts of the logs which would clear those
inconsistencies, redacting away the ones which deal with private aspects of
Manning and Lamo's discussion.

There is nothing that would justify Wired to not want to address these
inconsistencies by publishing the parts of the lags which contain the
corresponding information, yet they refuse.

What could justify this refusal ? Nothing, and that's where the whole "debate"
points more and more in the direction of something very fishy smelling going
on between the DoJ, Lamos and Poulsen.

If they have nothing to hide, have them publish the logs which explain the
factual inconsistencies of _extreme_ relevance to the case that Greenwald has
pointed.

That could change radically how Manning and Assange might be (or not at all)
indicted, so, sorry, that matters.

~~~
djcapelis
The court has the logs, they can use them however they want. How Manning or
Assange is indicted is not in the hands of Wired.

I believe there is some sort of deeply personal information in the logs
scattered through most of the references. Wired pulled out what they could and
posted. They are sticking with their decision on what could and couldn't be
published without revealing private unrelated issues.

It may be perfectly reasonable and you really should at least concede that
possibility.

------
beoba
D R A M A

