9 ms·

I don't understand - I thought the media was (justly) all over WikiLeaks, with special features in Guardian, NY Times and others? Short of the 2008 elections, I

by nir 16y ago

I don't understand - I thought the media was (justly) all over WikiLeaks, with special features in Guardian, NY Times and others? Short of the 2008 elections, I can't think of stories that got similar attention in recent years. I don't get Greenwald's issue with Wired. Journalists rarely provide complete records or transcripts of their communications with sources. Even interviews contain mutually agreed "off the record" sections. Maybe they ought to release the chat logs, maybe not, either way "journalistic disgrace" sounds a bit hyperbolic.

jdp23 16y ago
Agreed. I share Glenn's skepticism of the Lamo's changing stories but y'know it was the New York Times who published it, not Wired. At some level it comes across as sour grapes and jealousy that Kevin knows more about than he does.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
Vivtek 16y ago
His delicious hyperbole is why I love Glenn Greenwald.
- nir 16y ago
  Indeed, the pundit for the Reddit generation ;)
  - cynest 16y ago
    Isn't reddit a bit too niche for it to have a "reddit generation"?
    - nir 16y ago
      I should certainly hope so
alexqgb 16y ago
Depending on the quality of the coverage, the level of attention paid can be incidental to the clarity provided. See "Signal to Noise" for details. See FOX News for examples.
jeremymims 16y ago
The media has been all over Assange (especially his personal life), but they've been minimally interested in the leaks themselves. In fact, many media outlets have gone so far as to condemn the Wikileaks organization or to dismiss them as "not containing anything we didn't already know". The problem isn't when journalists agree to keep some information off the record to protect a source. It's when doing so fundamentally changes the character of a story or is actually part of the story itself. What Greenwald outlines is a journalist who is thoroughly compromised. It's gone so far that he's actually part of the story. Two other similar examples come to mind: 1. When Judith Miller was given false information about Iraq that she used to write pro-Iraq invasion stories, she was using anonymous Bush administration sources. When it turned out that this information was incorrect, she decided to protect the identity of her sources. A real journalist would have realized that the story was: "Bush Official X leaked false information to journalists in order to sell the war to the American people." When a source makes you that much of a fool, you burn them, unless you were a helpful collaborator. 2. When Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent, he protected his source. At this time, Scooter Libby was peddling this information on behalf of Vice President Cheney's office. This was in retaliation for her husband, Joe Wilson's, release of information dismissing the Iraq/Niger Yellow Cake story that the US used as a reason to go to war. However, it turned out that it was Tim Russert (a longtime member of the DC press establishment) who had passed along the leaked Scooter Libby information to Novak. Tim Russert covered the Valerie Plame story for years before anyone knew he was the reason for her outing. And Russert failed for years to use his inside knowledge to report the true story to the American people. This led to Scooter Libby being able to take a minimal charge of obstruction of justice and ultimately a sentence commutation from George Bush. So this isn't so much about keeping notes or a transcript. It's about a member of the press with the truth at their disposal, but choosing to hide it for some reason. My guess is he's writing a book and would like to keep some information proprietary, but considering the case that Greenwald levels, some sort of response is appropriate.
- dschobel 16y ago
  Libby never received a pardon from Bush, only a commutation of the jail time. He still has a felony conviction on his record. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby#Presidential_Commutation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby#Presidential_Comm...

by nir 16y ago

jdp23 16y ago

Agreed. I share Glenn's skepticism of the Lamo's changing stories but y'know it was the New York Times who published it, not Wired. At some level it comes across as sour grapes and jealousy that Kevin knows more about than he does.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

Vivtek 16y ago

His delicious hyperbole is why I love Glenn Greenwald.

nir 16y ago
Indeed, the pundit for the Reddit generation ;)
- cynest 16y ago
  Isn't reddit a bit too niche for it to have a "reddit generation"?
  - nir 16y ago
    I should certainly hope so

alexqgb 16y ago

Depending on the quality of the coverage, the level of attention paid can be incidental to the clarity provided. See "Signal to Noise" for details. See FOX News for examples.

jeremymims 16y ago

The media has been all over Assange (especially his personal life), but they've been minimally interested in the leaks themselves. In fact, many media outlets have gone so far as to condemn the Wikileaks organization or to dismiss them as "not containing anything we didn't already know". The problem isn't when journalists agree to keep some information off the record to protect a source. It's when doing so fundamentally changes the character of a story or is actually part of the story itself. What Greenwald outlines is a journalist who is thoroughly compromised. It's gone so far that he's actually part of the story. Two other similar examples come to mind: 1. When Judith Miller was given false information about Iraq that she used to write pro-Iraq invasion stories, she was using anonymous Bush administration sources. When it turned out that this information was incorrect, she decided to protect the identity of her sources. A real journalist would have realized that the story was: "Bush Official X leaked false information to journalists in order to sell the war to the American people." When a source makes you that much of a fool, you burn them, unless you were a helpful collaborator. 2. When Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent, he protected his source. At this time, Scooter Libby was peddling this information on behalf of Vice President Cheney's office. This was in retaliation for her husband, Joe Wilson's, release of information dismissing the Iraq/Niger Yellow Cake story that the US used as a reason to go to war. However, it turned out that it was Tim Russert (a longtime member of the DC press establishment) who had passed along the leaked Scooter Libby information to Novak. Tim Russert covered the Valerie Plame story for years before anyone knew he was the reason for her outing. And Russert failed for years to use his inside knowledge to report the true story to the American people. This led to Scooter Libby being able to take a minimal charge of obstruction of justice and ultimately a sentence commutation from George Bush. So this isn't so much about keeping notes or a transcript. It's about a member of the press with the truth at their disposal, but choosing to hide it for some reason. My guess is he's writing a book and would like to keep some information proprietary, but considering the case that Greenwald levels, some sort of response is appropriate.

dschobel 16y ago
Libby never received a pardon from Bush, only a commutation of the jail time. He still has a felony conviction on his record. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby#Presidential_Commutation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby#Presidential_Comm...