5 ms·

If your point isn't that "Wired has committed journalistic errors", you probably shouldn't name your piece "The worsening journalistic disgrace at Wired". But r

by btmorex 16y ago

If your point isn't that "Wired has committed journalistic errors", you probably shouldn't name your piece "The worsening journalistic disgrace at Wired". But really, that's exactly what Greenwald was saying and I think this response pretty much refutes it.

grandalf 16y ago
There are allegations against Assange that he can't refute w/o the chat logs. That's my point. Wired got up in arms after a few accusations it didn't like.
- cma 16y ago
  They clearly stated that Lamo's recent allegations were included in the chat logs, and that the NYT piece that Glenn quoted got that wrong.
  - grandalf 16y ago
    How do we know this w/o the full text of the logs?
    - tptacek 16y ago
      Easy. You take the logs that Wired did release, and the information that Greenwald claims wasn't in there that was documented outside Wired, and you see if they're in there. Wired just went on the record saying they are. Go refute the claim.
    - cma 16y ago
      We don't; how do I know you aren't payed by the government to say this unless right now you disclose all of your bank account credentials so I can check? (/sarcasm) Greenwald's piece was predicated on new information coming to light (Lamo's recent allegations) that showed there was missing details in the chat logs that were material to the case. Wired refuted this; I just looked at the logs again and their refutation makes sense to me.
      - grandalf 16y ago
        Ok, so if the chat logs are eventually revealed and they contain information relevant to the accusations against Assange, then you will reverse your opinion?
        cma 16y ago
        I'd gladly reverse my view on Wired in that case; I won't reverse my view on Greenwald's article; the information he used to back his argument doesn't make sense. If the conclusion ends up being correct, the argument still will have been bogus.
    - Bud 16y ago
      Tp: Uh, I think I'd rather just see the chat logs. Seems to me the Wired piece is long on unrelated attacks on Greenwald, and short on a lot of other things, like a convincing explanation of why they won't release the logs.
      - tptacek 16y ago
        Who wouldn't want the chat logs? I'm sure they're a lot more fun to read than Wired's summary of what's in the chat logs. What's your point? It is not interesting or insightful to point out that everyone wants the chat logs and will not be satisfied with anything but the chat logs. Yes. You are on record: you demand the chat logs. It is clearly obvious that you would want the chat logs. Wired says: no. They gave their reasons. You are not going to agree with any of those reasons, because you want to read the chat logs, and you are a commenter on a nerd message board and as such you see all those reasons as a logical system to be gamed to achieve the outcome you desire. I don't blame you because I too am commenting on a nerd message board. But: be self aware about it.
        grandalf 16y ago
        I think the issue is that Wired doesn't really come across as trustworthy and very well might be withholding relevant information. There are still a few somewhat fishy aspects to the story.
        tptacek 16y ago
        There's nothing they can reasonably do to not be "fishy" to WL supporters. Releasing the chat transcripts no more gets Wired out of the Lamo/Poulsen quandary than releasing the physical hard copy birth certificate gets Obama out of the birther quandary. People should just admit it. They don't want the chat logs because it will make them believe Wired more. They want the chat logs because the chat logs are fun drama. It doesn't make you a bad person to concede that; it just makes you a human being.
        grandalf 16y ago
- tptacek 16y ago
  "A few accusations it didn't like", including: * That Kevin Poulsen was untrustworthy because he'd been caught hacking in 1990. * That Wired had helped orchestrate Manning's arrest (Lamo turned Manning in; Lamo doesn't work for Wired). * That Wired is being unprofessional by not releasing complete private chat transcripts, while other news outlets are being unprofessional for releasing too much private information about Wikileaks supporters. * That Wired had refused to respond to Greenwald's request when that request was in fact issued with a 24 hour deadline on Christmas day. * That Wired had concealed material details of the supposed Manning leaks when in fact the details they were alleged to have concealed were in fact referenced directly in the the chat logs they released. * That Wired is responsible for Manning/Lamo/Assange stories they themselves didn't report on. * That Poulsen is Lamo's "personal media voice" despite the fact that Lamo received significantly more coverage outside SecurityFocus (Poulsen didn't meet Lamo while working at Wired) than in it. * That Mark Rasch prosecuted Poulsen for computer hacking when in fact he left federal government service in 1991, before Poulsen was tried (by two unrelated state prosecutors). * That all the time Greenwald accused Wired of bias, he was using Jacob Applebaum (Wikileaks' US spokesperson) as a primary source without disclosing the affiliation, was privately trying to hire an attorney for Manning, and was carrying on daily off-the-record conversations with Assange. Yeah, I can see how Wired might "get up in arms" about this.
  - OpieCunningham 16y ago
    That Wired is being unprofessional by not releasing complete private chat transcripts, while other news outlets are being unprofessional for releasing too much private information about Wikileaks supporters. I know that's essentially paraphrased from Wireds response, like everything else you called out - but is that actually what Greenwald has done? What I've seen is two fold: 1- Greenwald calling out news organizations for presenting Assanges displeasure at his own privacy breaches as hypocrisy when it actually isn't hypocrisy for a democratic govt to have limited privacy and an individual to have maximum privacy. 2- Assange calling out the Swedish govt for leaking information about the case when the govts own laws dictate that the information remain private. So although Wired eloquently said one thing, and you helpfully repeated it, is it even true? I haven't seen it, perhaps you could provide a link to Greenwald where he said it. And maybe there are a few more items on your cheerleading list that would be better served with some citations.

by btmorex 16y ago

grandalf 16y ago

There are allegations against Assange that he can't refute w/o the chat logs. That's my point. Wired got up in arms after a few accusations it didn't like.

cma 16y ago
They clearly stated that Lamo's recent allegations were included in the chat logs, and that the NYT piece that Glenn quoted got that wrong.
- grandalf 16y ago
  How do we know this w/o the full text of the logs?
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Easy. You take the logs that Wired did release, and the information that Greenwald claims wasn't in there that was documented outside Wired, and you see if they're in there. Wired just went on the record saying they are. Go refute the claim.
  - cma 16y ago
    We don't; how do I know you aren't payed by the government to say this unless right now you disclose all of your bank account credentials so I can check? (/sarcasm) Greenwald's piece was predicated on new information coming to light (Lamo's recent allegations) that showed there was missing details in the chat logs that were material to the case. Wired refuted this; I just looked at the logs again and their refutation makes sense to me.
    - grandalf 16y ago
      Ok, so if the chat logs are eventually revealed and they contain information relevant to the accusations against Assange, then you will reverse your opinion?
      - cma 16y ago
        I'd gladly reverse my view on Wired in that case; I won't reverse my view on Greenwald's article; the information he used to back his argument doesn't make sense. If the conclusion ends up being correct, the argument still will have been bogus.
  - Bud 16y ago
    Tp: Uh, I think I'd rather just see the chat logs. Seems to me the Wired piece is long on unrelated attacks on Greenwald, and short on a lot of other things, like a convincing explanation of why they won't release the logs.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      Who wouldn't want the chat logs? I'm sure they're a lot more fun to read than Wired's summary of what's in the chat logs. What's your point? It is not interesting or insightful to point out that everyone wants the chat logs and will not be satisfied with anything but the chat logs. Yes. You are on record: you demand the chat logs. It is clearly obvious that you would want the chat logs. Wired says: no. They gave their reasons. You are not going to agree with any of those reasons, because you want to read the chat logs, and you are a commenter on a nerd message board and as such you see all those reasons as a logical system to be gamed to achieve the outcome you desire. I don't blame you because I too am commenting on a nerd message board. But: be self aware about it.
      - grandalf 16y ago
        I think the issue is that Wired doesn't really come across as trustworthy and very well might be withholding relevant information. There are still a few somewhat fishy aspects to the story.
        tptacek 16y ago
        There's nothing they can reasonably do to not be "fishy" to WL supporters. Releasing the chat transcripts no more gets Wired out of the Lamo/Poulsen quandary than releasing the physical hard copy birth certificate gets Obama out of the birther quandary. People should just admit it. They don't want the chat logs because it will make them believe Wired more. They want the chat logs because the chat logs are fun drama. It doesn't make you a bad person to concede that; it just makes you a human being.
        grandalf 16y ago
tptacek 16y ago
"A few accusations it didn't like", including: * That Kevin Poulsen was untrustworthy because he'd been caught hacking in 1990. * That Wired had helped orchestrate Manning's arrest (Lamo turned Manning in; Lamo doesn't work for Wired). * That Wired is being unprofessional by not releasing complete private chat transcripts, while other news outlets are being unprofessional for releasing too much private information about Wikileaks supporters. * That Wired had refused to respond to Greenwald's request when that request was in fact issued with a 24 hour deadline on Christmas day. * That Wired had concealed material details of the supposed Manning leaks when in fact the details they were alleged to have concealed were in fact referenced directly in the the chat logs they released. * That Wired is responsible for Manning/Lamo/Assange stories they themselves didn't report on. * That Poulsen is Lamo's "personal media voice" despite the fact that Lamo received significantly more coverage outside SecurityFocus (Poulsen didn't meet Lamo while working at Wired) than in it. * That Mark Rasch prosecuted Poulsen for computer hacking when in fact he left federal government service in 1991, before Poulsen was tried (by two unrelated state prosecutors). * That all the time Greenwald accused Wired of bias, he was using Jacob Applebaum (Wikileaks' US spokesperson) as a primary source without disclosing the affiliation, was privately trying to hire an attorney for Manning, and was carrying on daily off-the-record conversations with Assange. Yeah, I can see how Wired might "get up in arms" about this.
- OpieCunningham 16y ago
  That Wired is being unprofessional by not releasing complete private chat transcripts, while other news outlets are being unprofessional for releasing too much private information about Wikileaks supporters. I know that's essentially paraphrased from Wireds response, like everything else you called out - but is that actually what Greenwald has done? What I've seen is two fold: 1- Greenwald calling out news organizations for presenting Assanges displeasure at his own privacy breaches as hypocrisy when it actually isn't hypocrisy for a democratic govt to have limited privacy and an individual to have maximum privacy. 2- Assange calling out the Swedish govt for leaking information about the case when the govts own laws dictate that the information remain private. So although Wired eloquently said one thing, and you helpfully repeated it, is it even true? I haven't seen it, perhaps you could provide a link to Greenwald where he said it. And maybe there are a few more items on your cheerleading list that would be better served with some citations.