12 ms·

Chelsea Manning, who gave trove of U.S. secrets to Wikileaks, to leave prison

44 points by endswapper 9y ago

mtgx 9y ago
I don't want to give WashPost a page view, but from the title I assume the article is at least somewhat negative about Manning?
- desireco42 9y ago
  I don't know why you got downvoted, I am with you on this.
  - jrimbault 9y ago
    Both of you, why ? If it was really about page views, I assumed everyone here would know how to view a webpage without giving a view ?
    - toxican 9y ago
      Because if it ain't fox news or breitbart, it ain't fer me, yeehaw. Washington comPost!
      - colordrops 9y ago
        No, because the Washington Post is a political tool owned by Jeff Bezos, and pushes a neo-liberal agenda. It cuts both ways. They ran 16 negative stories in half a day against Bernie Sanders during the election: http://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories-on-bernie-sanders-in-16-hours/ http://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories...
        cholantesh 9y ago
        Every newspaper has an editorial voice. It is acknowledged that the Post's is neoliberal, but as the OP is reporting and not editorial, it's a red herring.
        colordrops 9y ago
        The problem is that the lines between reporting and editorial are severely blurred in most publications. Just because the heading doesn't say "Opinion" or "Editorial" doesn't mean that the article isn't packed full of loaded headlines, biases, willful misinformation, and convenient leaving out of certain aspects of a story, usually driven from the top of the organization. I'd suggest reading Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky for more information on the topic.
        cholantesh 9y ago
        I've read Necessary Illusions; I had understood they covered pretty much the same ground, is that not the case? Anyway, all of the articles on FAIR's list were opinion pieces. If there's an analysis of its reporting of a pertinent event as compared to a less compromised source, it would help.
        colordrops 9y ago
        You proved my point. Only TWO of the articles on FAIR's list are marked as "Opinion" or "Editorial". I checked every single one on WaPo's site.
        cholantesh 9y ago
        That's probably because those are the only ones that were also in the print edition. The others are blog or analysis pieces. Which, by definition, are opinion pieces. One of the section headings even includes the word blog in its name! That seems pretty clear to me.
      - turc1656 9y ago
        WaPo sucks, as do Fox News, Breitbart, and HuffPo (among others). None of them should be taken seriously. They're all rags that have so much political slant they should be eligible for tax free status as components of their respective political parties. None of them should be treated as "news" sites.
        jrimbault 9y ago
        I'm drawing a comparison with gadget reviews (MKBHD youtube), but isn't it better to get news from an outlet you know the leanings and interests of than of one you don't ? I'm paraphrasing MKBHD here, but I know his tastes and how they differ from mine, thus I can infer good information from his reviews by working out the differences. It may be less easy to do with political news -which are even more emotionally loaded than an Apple Watch review- than with gadget reviews, but it's worth it in my opinion.
        turc1656 9y ago
        I get what you're saying, and there is certainly a place for that. For example, just this week I saw the WaPo headlines about Trump supposedly sharing classified intelligence with Russian diplomats. Now maybe that's true. But my spidey sense was tingling as I read the articles from all the major news outlets. I saw not one of them was calling for impeachment for what would absolutely be a crime if it is true. And I saw not one of them was calling for charges to be levied, which I would expect people who dislike him to be rooting for since it's precisely the same sort of crime that Trump wanted Hillary in prison for. The articles also mention how the third-party source didn't approve for the info to be shared with Russia. All of this combined indicates to me that the information isn't "classified" at all. It's just considered sensitive - and that's a massive difference. One that would make all the headlines factually inaccurate. And since none of the media outlets were calling for action to be taken, I think they are fully aware that the info wasn't actually classified. But more importantly, I find the real risk isn't in what/how they are reporting and being aware of the slant, but rather in what they are intentionally not reporting on. The issue at its core is information asymmetry. No one individual can stay on top of everything going on in the world which is why we rely on information sources to sort it out and keep us informed. But they can't be trusted - any of them. They all have agendas and biases. The only way is to expose yourself to information from multiple sources with different opinions so that you can, hopefully, wade through all the bullshit and actually get to the facts. Also, with something like gadget reviews, you can close that information gap by purchasing it and testing it yourself. You can easily determine if someone is full of crap. You can't easily do that when it comes to politics and world news. And the risk to society with our current media/news system is extraordinary. People follow the sources that they agree with and it becomes a bubble for them that they live in. Those sources rarely ever introduce anything that goes against their narrative grain so you get a positive feedback loop where people's opinions are strengthened simply because of the information they choose to consume. It's like how so many people on Twitter and Facebook couldn't comprehend how Trump won because they 1) don't associate with anyone who supported him and 2) they only followed people with the same political beliefs - so they had no idea what his true support level was. /rant
    - desireco42 9y ago
      Because it is new FoxNews, they spread half truths and missinformation. Yesterday they published article how Seth Rich was never in contact with Wikileaks. From other sites there seem to be healthy exchange between him and Wikileaks before his murder. How can you be journalist and not know that.
      - icebraining 9y ago
        I'm assuming this is the story you're talking about: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/family-of-slain-seth-rich-says-reports-he-fed-wikileaks-dnc-info-are-untrue/2017/05/16/9b32ef9c-3a46-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/family-of... From what I can tell, it reports all the sources that claim that such a contact existed: Fox News and Rod Wheeler. Which other sites are you talking about and what do they say that's missing here?
- chaosite 9y ago
  The title is, or at the very least can be read as such, but the article seems fairly neutral and factual.
  - lallysingh 9y ago
    Looks like they're trying for balance: "Manning has been lauded as a hero by some and decried as a traitor by others, including President Trump. Her long initial sentence and at times severe treatment while incarcerated — she spent long stretches of time in solitary confinement and at one point was made to sleep naked — made her a cause celebre for antiwar and government transparency advocates. Critics, meanwhile, said she put U.S. lives and operations at risk as an attention-getting antic."
- babyacountant 9y ago
  Why be so ignorant, read the article and form your own opinion.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- nicky0 9y ago
  For the uninitiated, what's wrong with the Washington Post?
  - babyacountant 9y ago
    Personally I lost a bit of faith in them after the whole YouTube PewDiePie racism debacle.
    - dagw 9y ago
      Wasn't that the WSJ?
      - pharrlax 9y ago
        Started with WSJ but lots of other outlets pitched in.
        dagw 9y ago
        But if you're going to boycott someone over something shouldn't you boycott the entity responsible? From what I can find WaPo reported what WSJ wrote and then gave plenty of space to Kjellberg and his side of the story.
        cholantesh 9y ago
        More accurate to say that it was first reported by the WSJ and picked up by other outlets based on their reputation as a paper of record [1]. Whether this perception is merited, or if the concept is (still) relevant is another conversation. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_of_record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_of_record
  - roflc0ptic 9y ago
    The common complaint is that they're liberal. People in my circles think they're a corporatist neoliberal rag, but it's really a matter of perspective. Some people think they're one of the few institutions still doing passable journalism.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- cryptarch 9y ago
  Archived link: http://archive.is/HiG0l http://archive.is/HiG0l
nailer 9y ago
Thanks Obama (genuinely).
- turc1656 9y ago
  I really wish he would have pardoned Snowden in addition to this.
  - yellowapple 9y ago
    My understanding is that doing so wasn't technically possible, since Snowden has yet to stand trial and thus has yet to be found guilty of any crime (thus leaving nothing for the President to pardon).
    - turc1656 9y ago
      True, but the president actually has the ability to grant pre-indictment pardons based on a supreme court ruling from 1867. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/05/opinion/l-constitution-allows-pardons-before-conviction-590688.html http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/05/opinion/l-constitution-all... "It extends to every offense known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment."
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
avar 9y ago
The latest episode of the Intercepted podcast is relevant: https://theintercept.com/2017/05/10/intercepted-podcast-james-comey-chelsea-manning-and-the-secrets-america-keeps/ https://theintercept.com/2017/05/10/intercepted-podcast-jame... They have some audio snippets from the trial itself on that podcast.
zyxzevn 9y ago
For those interested what information Chelsea (former Bradley) Manning released: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HrgTmrfCkc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HrgTmrfCkc (newsbud)
merricksb 9y ago
Active discussion on NY Times version of the story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14355739 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14355739

44 points by endswapper 9y ago

mtgx 9y ago

I don't want to give WashPost a page view, but from the title I assume the article is at least somewhat negative about Manning?

desireco42 9y ago
I don't know why you got downvoted, I am with you on this.
- jrimbault 9y ago
  Both of you, why ? If it was really about page views, I assumed everyone here would know how to view a webpage without giving a view ?
  - toxican 9y ago
    Because if it ain't fox news or breitbart, it ain't fer me, yeehaw. Washington comPost!
    - colordrops 9y ago
      No, because the Washington Post is a political tool owned by Jeff Bezos, and pushes a neo-liberal agenda. It cuts both ways. They ran 16 negative stories in half a day against Bernie Sanders during the election: http://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories-on-bernie-sanders-in-16-hours/ http://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories...
      - cholantesh 9y ago
        Every newspaper has an editorial voice. It is acknowledged that the Post's is neoliberal, but as the OP is reporting and not editorial, it's a red herring.
        colordrops 9y ago
        The problem is that the lines between reporting and editorial are severely blurred in most publications. Just because the heading doesn't say "Opinion" or "Editorial" doesn't mean that the article isn't packed full of loaded headlines, biases, willful misinformation, and convenient leaving out of certain aspects of a story, usually driven from the top of the organization. I'd suggest reading Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky for more information on the topic.
        cholantesh 9y ago
        I've read Necessary Illusions; I had understood they covered pretty much the same ground, is that not the case? Anyway, all of the articles on FAIR's list were opinion pieces. If there's an analysis of its reporting of a pertinent event as compared to a less compromised source, it would help.
        colordrops 9y ago
        You proved my point. Only TWO of the articles on FAIR's list are marked as "Opinion" or "Editorial". I checked every single one on WaPo's site.
        cholantesh 9y ago
        That's probably because those are the only ones that were also in the print edition. The others are blog or analysis pieces. Which, by definition, are opinion pieces. One of the section headings even includes the word blog in its name! That seems pretty clear to me.
    - turc1656 9y ago
      WaPo sucks, as do Fox News, Breitbart, and HuffPo (among others). None of them should be taken seriously. They're all rags that have so much political slant they should be eligible for tax free status as components of their respective political parties. None of them should be treated as "news" sites.
      - jrimbault 9y ago
        I'm drawing a comparison with gadget reviews (MKBHD youtube), but isn't it better to get news from an outlet you know the leanings and interests of than of one you don't ? I'm paraphrasing MKBHD here, but I know his tastes and how they differ from mine, thus I can infer good information from his reviews by working out the differences. It may be less easy to do with political news -which are even more emotionally loaded than an Apple Watch review- than with gadget reviews, but it's worth it in my opinion.
        turc1656 9y ago
        I get what you're saying, and there is certainly a place for that. For example, just this week I saw the WaPo headlines about Trump supposedly sharing classified intelligence with Russian diplomats. Now maybe that's true. But my spidey sense was tingling as I read the articles from all the major news outlets. I saw not one of them was calling for impeachment for what would absolutely be a crime if it is true. And I saw not one of them was calling for charges to be levied, which I would expect people who dislike him to be rooting for since it's precisely the same sort of crime that Trump wanted Hillary in prison for. The articles also mention how the third-party source didn't approve for the info to be shared with Russia. All of this combined indicates to me that the information isn't "classified" at all. It's just considered sensitive - and that's a massive difference. One that would make all the headlines factually inaccurate. And since none of the media outlets were calling for action to be taken, I think they are fully aware that the info wasn't actually classified. But more importantly, I find the real risk isn't in what/how they are reporting and being aware of the slant, but rather in what they are intentionally not reporting on. The issue at its core is information asymmetry. No one individual can stay on top of everything going on in the world which is why we rely on information sources to sort it out and keep us informed. But they can't be trusted - any of them. They all have agendas and biases. The only way is to expose yourself to information from multiple sources with different opinions so that you can, hopefully, wade through all the bullshit and actually get to the facts. Also, with something like gadget reviews, you can close that information gap by purchasing it and testing it yourself. You can easily determine if someone is full of crap. You can't easily do that when it comes to politics and world news. And the risk to society with our current media/news system is extraordinary. People follow the sources that they agree with and it becomes a bubble for them that they live in. Those sources rarely ever introduce anything that goes against their narrative grain so you get a positive feedback loop where people's opinions are strengthened simply because of the information they choose to consume. It's like how so many people on Twitter and Facebook couldn't comprehend how Trump won because they 1) don't associate with anyone who supported him and 2) they only followed people with the same political beliefs - so they had no idea what his true support level was. /rant
  - desireco42 9y ago
    Because it is new FoxNews, they spread half truths and missinformation. Yesterday they published article how Seth Rich was never in contact with Wikileaks. From other sites there seem to be healthy exchange between him and Wikileaks before his murder. How can you be journalist and not know that.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      I'm assuming this is the story you're talking about: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/family-of-slain-seth-rich-says-reports-he-fed-wikileaks-dnc-info-are-untrue/2017/05/16/9b32ef9c-3a46-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/family-of... From what I can tell, it reports all the sources that claim that such a contact existed: Fox News and Rod Wheeler. Which other sites are you talking about and what do they say that's missing here?
chaosite 9y ago
The title is, or at the very least can be read as such, but the article seems fairly neutral and factual.
- lallysingh 9y ago
  Looks like they're trying for balance: "Manning has been lauded as a hero by some and decried as a traitor by others, including President Trump. Her long initial sentence and at times severe treatment while incarcerated — she spent long stretches of time in solitary confinement and at one point was made to sleep naked — made her a cause celebre for antiwar and government transparency advocates. Critics, meanwhile, said she put U.S. lives and operations at risk as an attention-getting antic."
babyacountant 9y ago
Why be so ignorant, read the article and form your own opinion.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
nicky0 9y ago
For the uninitiated, what's wrong with the Washington Post?
- babyacountant 9y ago
  Personally I lost a bit of faith in them after the whole YouTube PewDiePie racism debacle.
  - dagw 9y ago
    Wasn't that the WSJ?
    - pharrlax 9y ago
      Started with WSJ but lots of other outlets pitched in.
      - dagw 9y ago
        But if you're going to boycott someone over something shouldn't you boycott the entity responsible? From what I can find WaPo reported what WSJ wrote and then gave plenty of space to Kjellberg and his side of the story.
      - cholantesh 9y ago
        More accurate to say that it was first reported by the WSJ and picked up by other outlets based on their reputation as a paper of record [1]. Whether this perception is merited, or if the concept is (still) relevant is another conversation. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_of_record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_of_record
- roflc0ptic 9y ago
  The common complaint is that they're liberal. People in my circles think they're a corporatist neoliberal rag, but it's really a matter of perspective. Some people think they're one of the few institutions still doing passable journalism.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
cryptarch 9y ago
Archived link: http://archive.is/HiG0l http://archive.is/HiG0l

nailer 9y ago

Thanks Obama (genuinely).

turc1656 9y ago
I really wish he would have pardoned Snowden in addition to this.
- yellowapple 9y ago
  My understanding is that doing so wasn't technically possible, since Snowden has yet to stand trial and thus has yet to be found guilty of any crime (thus leaving nothing for the President to pardon).
  - turc1656 9y ago
    True, but the president actually has the ability to grant pre-indictment pardons based on a supreme court ruling from 1867. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/05/opinion/l-constitution-allows-pardons-before-conviction-590688.html http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/05/opinion/l-constitution-all... "It extends to every offense known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment."
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

avar 9y ago

The latest episode of the Intercepted podcast is relevant: https://theintercept.com/2017/05/10/intercepted-podcast-james-comey-chelsea-manning-and-the-secrets-america-keeps/ https://theintercept.com/2017/05/10/intercepted-podcast-jame... They have some audio snippets from the trial itself on that podcast.

zyxzevn 9y ago

For those interested what information Chelsea (former Bradley) Manning released: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HrgTmrfCkc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HrgTmrfCkc (newsbud)

merricksb 9y ago

Active discussion on NY Times version of the story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14355739 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14355739