Posted By Blake Hounshell
Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 3:13 PM
Share
I love a good blog fight as much as anyone, but after reading several thousand words of accusations and counter accusations being slung between Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald and Wired's Evan Hansen and Kevin Poulsen, I'm left scratching my head trying to figure out what, exactly, this particular dispute is all about.
For those of you who haven't been paying attention, first of all: congratulations. Second, here's a quick synopsis: On June 6, Poulsen and his colleague Kim Zetter broke the sensational story that a young Army intelligence officer, Bradley Manning, had been arrested for disclosing classified information to WikiLeaks, including a video showing a U.S. helicopter gunship killing three civilians in Iraq and more than 250,000 State Department cables. Wired's main source was Adrian Lamo, a former hacker who says he turned Manning in to U.S. authorities after the latter confessed to the deed in a Web chat. As Lamo explained his motivation: "I wouldn't have done this if lives weren't in danger."
Four days later, Poulsen and Zetter published a new article on Manning, as well as an incomplete transcript of Lamo and Manning's chats, which had begun on May 21 and continued for a few days. "The excerpts represent about 25 percent of the logs," they wrote. "Portions of the chats that discuss deeply personal information about Manning or that reveal apparently sensitive military information are not included."
That same day, the Washington Post published its own article on Manning's arrest, quoting from the logs, which the paper said it had received from Lamo. Some of the quotes do not appear in Wired's excerpts. Wired also continued to follow the story.
On June 18, Greenwald wrote a long blog post raising questions about Poulsen's scoop and about Lamo. He said he found the story "quite strange," called Lamo an "extremely untrustworthy source," and accused Poulsen of being "only marginally transparent about what actually happened here."
What was curious about Greenwald's post was that he didn't challenge any specific facts in Wired's reporting; he just pointed to what he saw as inconsistencies in the story, as well as Lamo's account, and condemned the ex-hacker's actions as "despicable." He didn't suggest outright that Manning had not actually confessed to Lamo. He didn't try to argue that Manning hadn't broken the law. He didn't say the log excerpts were fabricated. He did, however, complain that Lamo had told him about conversations with Manning that were not in the chat-log excerpts published by Wired, and called on the magazine to release them. Poulsen said he wouldn't be doing so, telling Greenwald: "The remainder is either Manning discussing personal matters that aren't clearly related to his arrest, or apparently sensitive government information that I'm not throwing up without vetting first."
Still with me?
Then, on Monday, several weeks after the cables had begun trickling out, Greenwald again returned to the issue. In a torqued-up post titled "The worsening journalistic disgrace at Wired," he excoriated the magazine and Poulsen for refusing to release the full logs, calling Poulsen's behavior "odious" and "concealment" of "key evidence." Greenwald appears to have been motivated to weigh in anew by Firedoglake -- a left-leaning website whose members had been obsessively trolling the Web for stories about Lamo and Manning, and even pulled together a handy, color-coded expanded transcript from the logs -- as well as by a flawed New York Times article reporting that the Justice Department was trying to build a conspiracy case against WikiLeaks frontman Julian Assange. Presumably, the logs would be an important part of the prosecution's argument.
Wired responded to Greenwald Tuesday night with twin posts by Evan Hansen, the magazine's editor in chief, and Poulsen. Greenwald fired back with two angry posts of his own today (1, 2). Long story short: Wired reiterated its refusal to release the logs (Poulsen: "[T]hose first stories in June either excerpted, quoted or reported on everything of consequence Manning had to say about his leaking"), Greenwald rejected that explanation, and both sides traded some nasty barbs about each other and made competing claims about the nature of Poulsen's relationship with Lamo.
What still remains a mystery to me is what, exactly, Greenwald thinks is being covered up here. What is he accusing Wired of doing, and why? Does he think that the full transcript of the logs would somehow exonerate Manning, or prove Lamo a liar? And if he catches Lamo telling a journalist something that wasn't in the logs, what then?
Ironically, Wired seems most worried about protecting Manning, whom Greenwald is ostensibly trying to defend. The magazine has hinted all along that what's not been made public is mainly stuff that Manning would not want to see on the front page of the Daily Mail. Hansen writes:
To be sure, there's a legitimate argument to be made for publishing Manning's chats. The key question (to us): At what point does everything Manning disclosed in confidence become fair game for reporting, no matter how unconnected to his leaking or the court-martial proceeding against him, and regardless of the harm he will suffer?
In other words: Be careful what you wish for, Glenn.
UPDATE: Over Twitter, Greenwald responds. Here are three tweets put together:
To answer your question, I want the logs because it'll show if Lamo's claims are *true* - isn't that what journalism is? You seem confused because I don't know whose cause will be helped by disclosure - it'll help the cause of truth. Lamo made lots of fantastical claims about what Manning said - Wired can say if those claims are true. Why shouldn't they???
I know Glenn is looking for a normative answer, but I'm going to answer this in a roundabout way. Reporters generally don't consider it their business to fact-check claims made by sources in other publications. They look for ways to advance a story, or move on to other topics if there doesn't seem to be any "news" to be had. They also generally do weigh the harm that will come of too much disclosure against the value of the information to be disclosed. And they judiciously husband their scarcest resource: time.
I think some combination of all that is what is going on here, in addition to the bad blood that has been generated by Greenwald's unfortunate impugnment of Poulsen's integrity and his motives. Would it be relatively easy for Wired to take a look at the specific claims Lamo has made and check them against the logs? Probably. Would it be worth someone's time there? Maybe. Do I wish Poulsen would just directly address the seeming contradictions in Lamo's statements, in a way that protects what shred of privacy Manning has left? Yes. (In fact I emailed him this morning hoping to talk with him about it myself.) But at this point, I doubt it will happen.
I don't know why you actually bothered writing anything about this.
Your opening paragraph basically admits you found it hard going. Well, there are plenty of us who didn't find it hard going. So, well, to anyone who cares, you're not really adding to it. You're just giving out about how difficult you found to understand it.
And your summary is unrepresentative of the dispute as a result.
Here's the really really stupid version
http://www.heykevinpoulsen.com/
Please stop adding to the noise. If you don't have anything intelligent to say, please, don't write. I've had just about enough of people with an entirely more tenuous grasp of the facts on this story than I do making big of their status as merchants of opinion, and getting the whole thing further and further mired in the uncertainty of careless misinformation.
Please, have a bit of pride that people actually read you, and grow up.
I think people will appreciate a summary of the dispute that cuts through the noise. There's a lot of ancillary stuff that adds little to the core of the disagreement and makes it hard for busy people to follow what is going on. Nobody's forcing you to read!
I'm sorry, too, Blake, but you cut through more than the noise.
What still remains a mystery to me is what, exactly, Greenwald thinks is being covered up here. What is he accusing Wired of doing, and why? Does he think that the full transcript of the logs would somehow exonerate Manning, or prove Lamo a liar? And if he catches Lamo telling a journalist something that wasn't in the logs, what then?
The answers to all four of these questions are actually contained in the initial Greenwald post and the one from earlier this week. If they are not clear there, they are certainly clear in this morning's posts.
There's nothing AT ALL mysterious about Greenwald's position. You may disagree, but if it's simply confusing to you that Wired should confirm or deny (and then substantiate) that Lamo's claims are backed up in the concealed chat logs, well, that says more about you than it does Greenwald.
The most important claim being that Assange actively solicited the leaks from Manning, for which he would surely spend the rest of his life in jail (if extradited). Love him or hate him, isn't this worth clearing up? The US gov't seems to think so, as do Assange's supporters. If the logic shared by this vast range of interests is confusing to you, more homework needed / less public headscratching.
About what motivates Greenwald. If you read any of his words on this subject and can end your article with 'be careful what you wish for, Glenn' you have a serious reading comprehension problem, which to be fair you all but admitted early on.
It probably is a perplexing question to journalists like yourself that just because Greenwald makes no secret whom he supports in this case, he merely wants the truth to come out. He actually said, either way, the truth needs to be told. Whatever reason Wired is holding back on the parts that would shed light on Lamo's conflicting comments, which in turn could affect the government's attempt to get at Assange, they are not good ones and saying they are trying to "protect" Manning is BS and it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. If he ever goes to trial, how much is the government going to leave out to protect Manning? Sounds more like Poulson has a book in mind than protecting Manning. Greenwald
doesn't make that claim but it certainly occurs to many people. For you to say his columns are an "unfortunate impugnment of Poulsen's integrity and his motives." is ridiculous.
Where is Poulsen's integrity and what are his motives? It's very obvious Greenwald does not imply they could free Brad Manning with what they know, but there have been serious questions raised by Lamo's constant yakking and the chat logs could clear that up. You know, that truth thing? That's not reason enough for you?
Your update shows you maybe partially 'get it' but still, Poulson is the one who should get it and is pretending he doesn't. Calling him a journalist is a total joke.
to publish information given to them by one person to attempt to influence opinion on another. It is wired's obligation to make money and as such these logs are now theirs to use (or not use) when and as they see fit. Enough moralizing bs.
Necessary to retain credibility as journalists, yes. And completely voluntary.
So, no obligation for the press to inform citizens and help uphold the rule of law, but you think Wired IS OBLIGATED to make money!
Let's hope for Greenwald's sake that his opponents continue to demonstrate their priorities so clearly.
Please see merriam-webster for a definition. No where does it mention moral or other obligations to inform the public about anything. Augmenting a definition with your own personal values does not add to or change the underlying definition for anyone but yourself.
See title of the post you are replying to
And then re-read the body.
Reporters generally don't consider it their business to fact-check claims made by sources in other publications.
Since when? Seriously, when did journalism become an old-boys' network? It simply isn't polite to question another journalist's sources?
This is an amazing, breathtaking statement. Bob Somerby is proved right again.
Mr. Greenwald is hot and bothered over Mr. Manning and fantasizes that he'll personally be able to provide a defense for the indefensible Manning by finding evidence of entrapment to exculpate Manning.
The Greenwald frenzy of course doesn't appear to extend to having a Writ presented to the responsible judicial officer that would air all the allegations being promoted that Manning is being mistreated by the current confinement.
Mr. Greenwald has moved from inquiry to advocacy and he's on a useless and revealing fishing expedition now to see the undisclosed chats. Because Greenwald can't fathom that Manning is going to be slapped down in perpetuity for his crime(s), Greenwald rails at Wired for their proximity to Manning's unraveling.
Mr. Greenwald needs a breather.
He is to the Manning/Wikileaks story what holocaust deniers are to trains--'It's only 1,942 leaked cables, not 251,287'--yet.
Mr. Hounshell's 'digest' of these Alphonse/Gaston volleys is correct.
I disagree however that the remaining chats need be revealed at this time and anyone that wants a fair trial for the vile Mr. Manning should think twice about handing more evidence of Mannings acts and Mens rea to the prosecutors.
Greenwald is a hysterical male and one that would squander Manning's real defense in Greenwall's passion for all things anti-American in outcome-beginning with the right to a fair trial.
"Greenwald is a hysterical male..."
Huh?
Oh, wait, I get it. How very discrete of you.
Yes, Manning did violate his written commitment to safeguard the classified information to which he had access. And he will probably spend many years in jail for it.
But Greenwald is not wrong to demand that Wired verify that what Lamo, hacker "turned" by the FBI, is truthful.
In any event, the larger issue here is Assange and Wikileaks and any attempt to extend our already grandiose notions of our authority over the planet by hauling an Australian national into our court system so he can be disappeared into some supermax for the rest of his natural life.
The "Journalist" as Loyal Servant of the State
Well, well, BH...So, Greenwald responds pointedly to your query, telling precisely why he wants the information from Wired and asking, in turn, why such a reason is in any way inappropriate, and you decide to answer "in a roundabout way." Very impressive. Your "roundabout" reply is nothing but evasive gobbledygook.
You finish by agreeing that, "Poulsen [should] just directly address the seeming contradictions in Lamo's statements..." but then rather passively and not very unhappily suggest that it is unlikely to happen.
Greenwald just wrote another article on the willing submission of today's "journalists" to raison d'etat. I recommend you read it, as you are a perfect example. Here's a snippet:
"So absolute is the WikiLeaks-is-Evil bipartisan orthodoxy among the Beltway political and media class (forever cemented by the joint Biden/McConnell decree that Assange is a "high-tech Terrorist,") that you're viewed as being from another planet if you don't spout it. It's the equivalent of questioning Saddam's WMD stockpile in early 2003."
Yes, Blake, if you keep up the good work, you might be considered for Judith Miller's old job at the Times. For THAT position you are eminently qualified.
Who doesn't like being lied to?
What I don't understand about Manning story is when people continue to say Wikileaks cables are nothing like the Pentagon Papers. I can think of two instances where what I've read in the cables are just like the Pentagon papers.
1. Casualty rates for civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US government said they had no idea about those numbers and outright lied about it on numerous cases. This is an example where US government was asked for information and instead of saying the information was classified, they lied. Don't lie to me, tell me that I'm not allowed at this time to know, but don't lie to me.
2. Pentagon lied about human's rights abuses that have been reported by military officers of Iraqi prison guards and policemen. Last time I checked they had 20 something of those come through wikileaks and they told the public they had none at the time.
From my understanding of the Pentagon Papers and supreme court case was that releasing the classified material was made permissible because the Government was blatantly misleading the US public on foreign policy matters. How is this any different?
As for Greenwald, good for him if he wants to call out the horde that is the neo-pagan tech hippies over at wired, more power to him. I'm probably going to get someone call me unamerican for standing up for honesty. I digress, but thankyou Blake for writing this article, I was slightly queued into the story already but this was a good overview.
Take a look at the adverbs this author uses.
The invectives were in wired's piece, not in Greenwald's. He was calm, cool, and eviscerated them with facts and cites.
"Wired responded to Greenwald Tuesday night with twin posts by Evan Hansen, the magazine's editor in chief, and Poulsen. Greenwald fired back with two angry posts of his own today"
You've established your journalistic standards here
"Reporters generally don't consider it their business to fact-check claims made by sources in other publications."
Firedoglake is gathering statements by Lamo for research to help in Manning's case. I'm sure Marcy Wheeler and others will be using it, but according to you it's been driven by an emotional sickness.
"Firedoglake -- a left-leaning website whose members had been obsessively trolling the Web for stories about Lamo and Manning"
Your lack of objectivity reflects on you, especially when you admit right up front this subject leaves you scratching your head.
When you are in over your head, the best course of action is generally to keep out it.. That old maxim really does apply hear, Better to be quiet and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
To people that are not aquatinted, please go read for yourself.
I was struck by the use of certain adjectives used by Blake Hounshell to describe articles by Greenwald or web-sites which appear to support Wikileaks.
Of course, the twin posts by Wired writers weren't "angry" screeds!
Oh well.
Best quote from a "journalist" EVER:
"Reporters generally don't consider it their business to fact-check claims made by sources in other publications. They look for ways to advance a story, or move on to other topics if there doesn't seem to be any "news" to be had."
Perfectly sums up the pathetic nature of most journalists today--especially the 24hr idiots at Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.
no evidence that Wired's editorial decisions are unreasonable
I've read through all the posts by Greenwald and Wired.
I see no evidence that Wired's editorial decisions are anything outside of accepted journalistic practices. And I see no reason to doubt their decisions. There is simply nothing in Greenwald's writing that presents any evidence of wrongdoing on Wired's part.
Much as it seems to irritate Greenwald, Wired isn't under any obligation to satisfy his questions. The implication that Wired needs to answer his accusations... in order to disprove them... is in the realm of assuming someone of being guilty because they take the Fifth Amendment. One does not equal another.
I do not believe that Lamo is particularly credible. But my opinion, as along with Greenwald's many observations, again do not equate with any wrongdoing on Wired's part. Finally, simply because Lamo's public statements may contradict other reporting does not require Wired to resolve such inconsistencies.
This is an astonishingly stupid account of this dispute.
Greenwald has asked Wired to do a very simple thing: publish the portions of the transcripts that would back up Lamo's claims about them (which would seem impossible since they are contradictory) or state that those claims aren't in the transcripts. It doesn't matter who's "side" would benefit. It's a huge story about which Wired is in a unique position to "advance" and it refuses to do so on the flimsiest of pretenses. When challenged by Greenwald they offered up a litany of preposterous defenses.
If you are indeed scratching your head trying to figure out what, exactly, this particular dispute is all about and congratulating those who aren't paying attention then you are unqualified to summarize it to "cut through the noise."
See my comment above, but why is Wired obligated to answer Greenwald's questions?
If Greenwald has questions for the New York Times, are they obligated to answer them? How about the Pope? Is he required to answer to Greenwald? What about His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama? Does he have to worry about answering to Greenwald? Just wondering.
How about: Is Greenwald obligated to answer any questions I have about any of his stories? Or any questions you have?
If you think Wired's refusal to answer proves something, then that's up to you. But you would be wrong. It proves nothing.
I neither believe Wired nor Greenwald nor have any preferred side in the matter. However I find that suggestion that their refusal to answer means something to be rather disconcerting in a dispute that is supposedly about facts. There are simply no facts that Wired has done anything wrong. They are under no obligation to satisfy Greenwald or anyone else. And should or would Greenwald find himself in the same place I expect he would do the same: use his editorial judgment and publish what he felt was responsible to do so. Nor do I believe Greenwald would be swayed by others telling or demanding him that he do what they believe is correct or right.
Wired's obligations have nothing to do with satisfying Greenwald but rather with their ostensible obligations to their readers, to the discovery of the truth and to their own credibility. They, however, felt enough of an obligation to devote considerable time and space to address Greenwald, with a series of demonstrably false responses, particularly concerning the relationship between Poulsen and Lamo.
This is a profoundly important case, there are important questions which only Wired can shed light on. Other than the hollow phrase "editorial judgement" why wouldn't they?
I have no idea why they chose to print or not print what they did.
Reading the back-and-forth between Wired and Greenwald, I can't find any evidence of demonstrably false responses. But if that's the case, then why the continued and dogged pursuit of Wired to reveal the information? If they are clearly corrupt, then it would stand to show that they would not be forthcoming.
I find a lot of effort on Greenwald's part to impinge Wired's credibility and use these accusations as a kludge to get Wired to reveal the information he seeks. The implication being that the only way to clear their name is to satisfy his accusations. It's certainly an odd demand, since if his accusations are true then nothing would remedy this.
Indeed if the accusations were as clear cut as Mr. Greenwald would have us believe, the condemnation from other media sources would be swift. In truth, it is because the case is rather weak that he continues to continually pursue them and quite frankly I believe he has begun to sound rather shrill.
I doubt the editors at Wired are perfect nor do I think Mr. Greenwald is. I just don't see the scandal Mr. Greenwald wishes was there. He mostly seems angry that he can't see the documents that Wired possesses.
WikiLeaked is FP’s blog dedicated to sorting through and making sense of the more than 250,000 State Department cables acquired by WikiLeaks.
Read More
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(22)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE