Greenwald responds on Wired/Lamo/Poulsen/Manning affair | Hacker News Reader

Manning affair

salon.com

16 pointsBud14 comments

Actually not a dupe; Greenwald's response was in two parts, and this is the other (and somewhat more relevant) part.

You're right. It's not a dupe. I hadn't realized that Greenwald responded twice in the same day, on the same news website, and with two very similar URLs. Actually checking the content convinced me they were two different responses.

Just for the sake of completeness, here's a link to the other one:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2049072

Glenn probably should have done us a favor and just made one giant post, like he so often does. Thanks for the correction!

Yeah, I read his other response in my RSS feed and was totally let down; it didn't seem to address any of the real issues. This piece does.

I disagree. His spat with Wired has become a real issue. The public perception of Wired's, Lamo's, and Greenwald's integrity is at stake.

Since they are all critical players in this saga and important sources of information and analysis, their claims and charges against one another must be throughly analyzed.

To this end, Greenwald's other rebuttal is essential and very substantive.

>Back in June -- once Poulsen's claims that they were withholding only private information and national security secrets was proven false by The Washington Post's subsequent publication of chat excerpts that fell into neither category -- this is what I called on Wired to do:

This is where I disagree with Greenwald. I spent some time looking over a combined version of the logs that have been released by various sources to date[1], and didn't come to the same conclusion at all.

Looking at what Wired did release, I think two criteria stand out -- it's all about either leaks that were already public knowledge or directly related to Manning's role in leaking the documents.

If you look at what Wired omitted, it's most of the transcript we have for May 22. The parts that Wired chose to omit are almost entirely either about leaks that weren't yet public at the time Wired published in June or Manning talking about his mental and emotional state. This aligns fairly well with Wired's claim that the portions they chose to withhold were sensitive to either national security or of a personal nature. Looking directly at the primary source bolsters Wired's argument, if anything, in my opinion.

[1] http://firedoglake.com/merged-manning-lamo-chat-logs/

Even if that's the case, why can't Wired just come out and either confirm or deny that the withheld chat logs substantiate Lamo's claims?

And if portions of the chat logs do in fact substantiate Lamo's claims, why can't just those portions be released?

One heuristic that can be used in a situation like this (Greenwald vs Wired) is to measure the amount of psychological trickery leaking from each side's statement.

One classic trick is to get righteously indignant. People act that way to persuade others (emotionally, not logically) that they are right. It's a classic trick of psychological manipulation.

The Wired guys have level 10 indignation, while Glenn has about a level 1.

That's an interesting approach.

An alternative one is to actually look in to the substance of their respective arguments, analyze the evidence they offer, and judge them by that.

True, the heuristic I mentioned should only be used as part of a more complete analysis.

What do you suppose Greenwald's "indignation level" would be if Wired have called him a "journalistic disgrace"?

They pretty much did. Not in so many words, but that was much of the point of their rebuttal.

They charged that Greenwald didn't do basic fact checking, got the facts wrong, didn't disclose his own conflicts of interest, didn't even understand basic journalistic ethics, etc..

Not to mention their snide, condescending attitude towards him throughout their whole rebuttal.

Let's keep in mind:

Manning, who has variously been reported to have had 'adjustment issues', gender identity issues and/or been grappling with his sexual identity reaches out to someone openly queer, out of the blue, as a like-minded person to talk to.

I fail to see the massive conspiracy here, aside from a refusal to air (more) of Manning's private life.

The latest salvo in this journalist internet mudslinging (from both parties) is not at all HN worthy.

Straw man. Nobody has alleged a "massive conspiracy". What's being alleged is quite limited and can be substantiated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com