Glenn Greenwald has consistently delivered the best analysis of what has been going on with Wikileaks. He's appalled at the way most of the media has covered this story and I couldn't agree more.
I don't understand - I thought the media was (justly) all over WikiLeaks, with special features in Guardian, NY Times and others? Short of the 2008 elections, I can't think of stories that got similar attention in recent years.
I don't get Greenwald's issue with Wired. Journalists rarely provide complete records or transcripts of their communications with sources. Even interviews contain mutually agreed "off the record" sections. Maybe they ought to release the chat logs, maybe not, either way "journalistic disgrace" sounds a bit hyperbolic.
The media has been all over Assange (especially his personal life), but they've been minimally interested in the leaks themselves. In fact, many media outlets have gone so far as to condemn the Wikileaks organization or to dismiss them as "not containing anything we didn't already know".
The problem isn't when journalists agree to keep some information off the record to protect a source. It's when doing so fundamentally changes the character of a story or is actually part of the story itself.
What Greenwald outlines is a journalist who is thoroughly compromised. It's gone so far that he's actually part of the story.
Two other similar examples come to mind:
1. When Judith Miller was given false information about Iraq that she used to write pro-Iraq invasion stories, she was using anonymous Bush administration sources. When it turned out that this information was incorrect, she decided to protect the identity of her sources. A real journalist would have realized that the story was: "Bush Official X leaked false information to journalists in order to sell the war to the American people." When a source makes you that much of a fool, you burn them, unless you were a helpful collaborator.
2. When Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent, he protected his source. At this time, Scooter Libby was peddling this information on behalf of Vice President Cheney's office. This was in retaliation for her husband, Joe Wilson's, release of information dismissing the Iraq/Niger Yellow Cake story that the US used as a reason to go to war. However, it turned out that it was Tim Russert (a longtime member of the DC press establishment) who had passed along the leaked Scooter Libby information to Novak. Tim Russert covered the Valerie Plame story for years before anyone knew he was the reason for her outing. And Russert failed for years to use his inside knowledge to report the true story to the American people. This led to Scooter Libby being able to take a minimal charge of obstruction of justice and ultimately a sentence commutation from George Bush.
So this isn't so much about keeping notes or a transcript. It's about a member of the press with the truth at their disposal, but choosing to hide it for some reason. My guess is he's writing a book and would like to keep some information proprietary, but considering the case that Greenwald levels, some sort of response is appropriate.
> The media has been all over Assange (especially his personal life), but they've been minimally interested in the leaks themselves.
I disagree strongly with you. The NYT (as an example) has entire pages dedicated on their website for both the war logs and and diplomatic cables. Even several days ago their front page (print) story was from the leaks. The media is not dropping the ball on this, it's just that alternative media talking heads desperately want them to drop the ball and so just keep saying that they have.
Like it or not, Julian is the face of Wikileaks and his eccentricities and the intrigue surrounding him is part of the story. A compelling part. One that gets more people reading about this than otherwise would have. Reporting isn't just about telling facts no matter how unbiased a reporter or news establishment might be. This is precisely why Wikileaks releases raw data to their media partners for analysis under an embargo in the first place; analysis which comes with some bias.
Would you consider it good reporting if the media were to never address the rape allegations when interviewing Assange? Even if they're fabricated?
> In fact, many media outlets have gone so far as to condemn the Wikileaks organization or to dismiss them as "not containing anything we didn't already know".
Which media outlets are those? Suggesting that outside of the context of an Op-Ed would be pretty unethical, but I haven't see that and I haven't read it anywhere.
- Most people don't see a difference between an Op-Ed and actual news. Most cable news networks don't easily distinguish between news and opinion reporting since both are regularly done by the same people.
- I've noted a few articles in the previous comment that make the assertion that nothing new was released by Wikileaks in the article headlines. Most people don't really read beyond those anyway.
- Again we're focusing on Julian Assange. While there is a story to be written about him, that story is easy and lazy. The far harder story is to actually investigate the cables. Since the cables were transmitted to Wikileaks, vetted by select media partners, and released, no one has accused him of either fabricating or falsifying anything contained in these leaks. The rape accusations against him (while serious and perhaps true) do not change the information contained therein. The source doesn't actually taint the leaked information.
It'd be like me writing:
Former illegal cocaine and marijuana user, President Barack Obama, took a trip to Hawaii for Christmas break. Since he had been known to get a speeding ticket, it's interesting that he's asked to speed up the time table for implementing the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell".
> - Most people don't see a difference between an Op-Ed and actual news. Most cable news networks don't easily distinguish between news and opinion reporting since both are regularly done by the same people.
So your argument is: "Most people don't realize that there's a difference between opinion and reporting, so there isn't one."? I don't accept that people can't distinguish, and even if true, I don't accept that it makes any difference in the truth.
There is also a difference between real new organizations -- viz. print -- and cable news. Even on Fox News, however (note: I don't watch cable news frequently, I'm assuming this is still the case), their opinion shows are clearly separate from their actual reporting. O'Reilly, Hannity, Fox and Friends all discuss the news but aren't reporting it.
> Again we're focusing on Julian Assange. While there is a story to be written about him, that story is easy and lazy. The far harder story is to actually investigate the cables.
Forgive me, but, It's a bit offensive to the reporters at the New Yorker, or the Times, or the NYT to imply that such a story is easy and lazy. You make it sound like the two stories are mutually exclusive and it's not as it the cables themselves are being ignored by anyone.
> The rape accusations against him (while serious and perhaps true) do not change the information contained therein. The source doesn't actually taint the leaked information.
I'm not sure how major media outlets are implying that it does tain the leaked information. If you can see that, what makes you think that others can't?
> Former illegal cocaine and marijuana user, President Barack Obama, took a trip to Hawaii for Christmas break. Since he had been known to get a speeding ticket, it's interesting that he's asked to speed up the time table for implementing the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell".
I honestly don't know how you can't see that there's an ethical difference between what you said and the bias it contains and reporting that Julian Assange is accused of rape. If Obama were accused of rape and tried to pass DADT, you can bet it would be reported on too. Like it or not, the world doesn't organize itself into self-contained encapsulated segments of information. Humanity and human faces are a part of reporting, one that drives more people to know about things like the leaks than otherwise would have.
>Which media outlets are those? Suggesting that outside of the context of an Op-Ed would be pretty unethical, but I haven't see that and I haven't read it anywhere.
Half these stories report the US government saying the leaks aren't that important, the other half are op ed columns saying the same. The BBC, WaPo, NYT and Slate all covered the leaks extensively.
What would you expect them to do? Not report on any comments that downplay the leaks' importance? Ban op eds with this opinion? Reporting on WikiLeaks in a way that'll satisfy the Greenwald crowd seems to require a North Korean style of journalism.
There are quite a few more, in many languages. In my opinion it's the opposite of minimal interest.
The fact Assange's personal life are also reported makes sense. We can't claim he should be person of the year and at the same time expect no interest in his personal life.
I'm not sure I see the connection to Miller or Russert here. Is our understanding of the basic narrative (ie Manning obtaining the documents, passing them to Assange, disclosing it later to Lamo) likely to change if we have the full chat logs? Seems to me that rather than holding to some important truths, Wired are at best keeping some details they might hope to profit from later.
This is why Greenwald calling it "journalistic disgrace" comes off so hyperbolic. Rather than a reporter in search of truth, he comes off as a spoiled kid that learned to expect the world will provide him whatever he wants if he screams loud enough. As I wrote, the pundit for the Reddit generation.
By the media, I don't mean just The New York Times and The Guardian. There are more than 5000 local newspapers in this country (where most people get their information), cable tv, and radio. It's become a widely spread idea that this past round of Wikileaks contained nothing new. The Obama Administration has asserted this as fact and it was widely reported by CBS, BBC, The Huffington Post and more. However, these articles are widely syndicated and a quick search on Google brings this up:
No surprises seen in WikiLeaks Iraq war data: Pentagon - Reuters (which is widely syndicated)
WikiLeaks shocker? In Kabul, Pakistan support for Taliban is no surprise - Christian Science Monitor
WikiLeaks torture cables no surprise - Yahoo News
Heck, even a letter to the editor at the Pantagraph newspaper in Bloomington, IL confirms my suspicion that many/most people don't believe there was anything new in the WikiLeaks dump at all:
"It wasn’t anything we didn’t know and it will all be forgotten, even by the media, except by the dumb military guy who gave them access to the Internet connections and will probably be tried for treason and left in jail."
The perception has been created. Most people don't read The New York Times or the Guardian and most small town newspapers report what the AP and Reuters deliver on national matters.
You won't find me arguing that Julian Assange isn't some kind of a story. But he's not even close to the whole thing. And he's basically irrelevant when it comes to investigating the leaks themselves. The information contained in the leaks are stories, most of which are glossed over by most of the media. Greenwald does a great job summing up a few of them: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/24...
Would you expect the newspapers not to print what Obama says, if it downplays WikiLeaks importance? Or that a google search will not find you some stories that understate them?
Or that when someone with Assange's prominence is charged with rape in Sweden (totally bogus IMHO, but still - Sweden is generally considered an advanced, sane nation) the media won't find it interesting?
The world contains people who hold different opinions from Glen Greenwald, and they get to publish them too.
> When Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent, he protected his source. At this time, Scooter Libby ... Tim Russert (a longtime member of the DC press establishment) who had passed along the leaked Scooter Libby information to Novak
Libby wasn't the source and Russert wasn't in the chain.
"On July 14, 2003, Washington Post journalist Robert Novak, from information obtained from Richard Armitage at the US State Department, effectively ended Valerie Plame's career with the CIA (from which she later resigned in December 2005) by revealing in his column her identity as a CIA operative.[31][32]"
That said, "Why Armitage's role in disclosing Plame's identity to Novak was not pursued has never been explained."
It's entirely possible that Armitage was also a source. There was clearly a coordinated effort from the Vice President's office to discredit Joe Wilson. However, Libby claimed that Russert was his source too.
"In the Plame affair, Scooter Libby, convicted chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that Russert told him of the identity of Central Intelligence Agency officer Valerie Plame"
"Posthumously Russert was revealed as a thirty-year source of columnist Robert Novak, whose original article revealed Plame's affiliation with the CIA."
"Russert and I were both uncomfortable about being witnesses, for different reasons, in the Valerie Plame CIA leak case, but we never discussed it. He always supported me, despite demands that he throw me overboard. When my memoir was published last year, Russert was generous in granting me abundant time on "Meet the Press" and his own MSNBC program."
I'm not sure how Russert could throw him overboard if he wasn't a source.
> It's entirely possible that Armitage was also a source. There was clearly a coordinated effort from the Vice President's office to discredit Joe Wilson. However, Libby claimed that Russert was his source too.
Whether or not that's true, it's irrelevant to the (false) claim that Libby was Novak's source. At best, it establishes that Libby wasn't Russert's source either, that the information went the other way.
Agreed. I share Glenn's skepticism of the Lamo's changing stories but y'know it was the New York Times who published it, not Wired. At some level it comes across as sour grapes and jealousy that Kevin knows more about than he does.
