5 ms·

Greenwald Responds to Wired

61 points by zzzeek 16y ago

mikeryan 16y ago
I think after 1 post and 2 exchanges the only appropriate resolution to this debate is a duel between the participants.
- dragmorp 16y ago
  I absolutely hate when people respond to a legitimate debate this way.
  - borism 16y ago
    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.
logic 16y ago
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.
- gnosis 16y ago
  Just get some popcorn and enjoy the show.
- cma 16y ago
  It should at least be more interesting than a Techcrunch "scandal".
beoba 16y ago
D R A M A
Bud 16y ago
Here is the companion post, which addresses the more substantive issues: http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/12/29/wired_1 http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/index.html?story=/opinio... I've put in on HN, here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2049449 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 16y ago
  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.
shareme 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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 16y ago
    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 16y ago
      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 16y ago
        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? :/
djcapelis 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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?
  - djcapelis 16y ago
    No, unfortunately I can't without further eroding someone's privacy if I'm right and if I'm right Wired is in the same position, which is part of why they can't really explain themselves to everyone's satisfaction. As for disclosing ties, yeah, I agree they might have gotten a bit sloppy there, but reporters cultivate personal relationships with sources all the time. I don't necessarily see that as a dealbreaker. But it seems sloppy at worst. I think they need to defend themselves from Greenwald's articles because he is making people hate them. Unfortunately to actually defend themselves would be to explain why they have to hold the information private, which they can't really do, without spoiling people's privacy. I think we need to give Wired some trust on this one.
  - gojomo 16y ago
    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.
Athtar 16y ago
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.
YuriNiyazov 16y ago
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 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 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>

61 points by zzzeek 16y ago

mikeryan 16y ago

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

dragmorp 16y ago
I absolutely hate when people respond to a legitimate debate this way.
- borism 16y ago
  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.

logic 16y ago

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.

gnosis 16y ago
Just get some popcorn and enjoy the show.
cma 16y ago
It should at least be more interesting than a Techcrunch "scandal".

beoba 16y ago

D R A M A

Bud 16y ago

Here is the companion post, which addresses the more substantive issues: http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/12/29/wired_1 http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/index.html?story=/opinio... I've put in on HN, here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2049449 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 16y ago
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.

shareme 16y ago

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 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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 16y ago
    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 16y ago
      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? :/

djcapelis 16y ago

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 16y ago
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?
- djcapelis 16y ago
  No, unfortunately I can't without further eroding someone's privacy if I'm right and if I'm right Wired is in the same position, which is part of why they can't really explain themselves to everyone's satisfaction. As for disclosing ties, yeah, I agree they might have gotten a bit sloppy there, but reporters cultivate personal relationships with sources all the time. I don't necessarily see that as a dealbreaker. But it seems sloppy at worst. I think they need to defend themselves from Greenwald's articles because he is making people hate them. Unfortunately to actually defend themselves would be to explain why they have to hold the information private, which they can't really do, without spoiling people's privacy. I think we need to give Wired some trust on this one.
- gojomo 16y ago
  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.

Athtar 16y ago

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.

YuriNiyazov 16y ago

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 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 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>