Actually, they're absolutely not taking the position that it's all or nothing: "That doesn’t mean we’ll never publish them, but before taking an irrevocable ac

Actually, they're absolutely not taking the position that it's all or nothing: "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." The specific request that Greenwald made for partial disclosure missed the fact that the information referenced had already been released, as described by Wired: "The Times story quotes Lamo as saying that Manning described uploading his leaks to Assange via a dedicated file server, and that he communicated with Assange over encrypted chat. The story says those portions of the conversations aren’t included in the excerpts we published. "Based on that, Greenwald claims that Wired’s “concealment” of the chat logs “is actively blinding journalists and others who have been attempting to learn what Manning did and did not do.” (That’s one sentence. He goes on in that vein for quite a while.) But the Times story is incorrect, as we noted on Wired.com the day after it ran. The excerpts we published included passages referencing both the file server and the encrypted chat room." Bottom line for me: Wired's response was well-reasoned and professional, and answered the fairly wild accusations in the original Greenwald piece.