Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government The Media United States

What If Manning Had Leaked To the New York Times? 348

Posted by timothy
from the ellsberg-protocol dept.
New submitter minstrelmike points outs a two-page editorial in the NYTimes "about what would have been different legally, morally, and security-wise," had the military information released through WikiLeaks been published by the Times instead. "'If Manning had delivered his material to The Times, WikiLeaks would not have been able to post the unedited cables, as it ultimately did, heedless of the risk to human rights advocates, dissidents and informants named therein. In fact, you might not have heard of WikiLeaks. The group has had other middling scoops, but Manning put it on the map.' The writers also discusses what the Times would and would not have done, admitting they probably wouldn't have shared with other news outlets, but also admitting they would definitely have not shared everything."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What If Manning Had Leaked To the New York Times?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 12, 2013 @08:31AM (#43148083)

    He wanted it to get out.

    • by poetmatt (793785) on Tuesday March 12, 2013 @09:04AM (#43148383) Journal

      exactly. This would never see the light of day with the NY times, because the NY times is not a press/journalism organization. It's a media-spin government friendly organization which refuses to cover actual issues.

      Where was the NYT with the revolutions in the middle east? Not covering them, that's where. NYT is instead always too busy not fact checking anything [techdirt.com].

      meanwhile the line of unedited cables line is full of shit. minstrelmike is clearly trolling. Whereas NYT can't even get basic information right [nytimes.com], wikileaks actually edited the information before releasing it.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 12, 2013 @11:00AM (#43149653)

        Yup.

        The media has failed this guy as completely and as utterly as any organization possibly could. He has repeatedly called for the public to have a discussion or debate about the role of the United States' military in the geopolitical landscape. As far as I can tell, no such discussion has been fostered by the media. But why would they? It's the media's job to keep us stupid, to prevent us from learning what is actually happening in the world.

        Bradley Manning is simply someone who figured out what is actually going on, and it bothered him. Bothered him enough that he wanted to share that information with the world.

        "I also believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of time by different sectors of society might cause society to reevaluate the need or even the desire to even to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the affected environment everyday." - Bradley Manning

      • by boorack (1345877)

        meanwhile the line of unedited cables line is full of shit. minstrelmike is clearly trolling. Whereas NYT can't even get basic information right [nytimes.com], wikileaks actually edited the information before releasing it.

        I think it was intentional lie, not just an omission or lack of fact checking on behalf of NYT. After all this is corporate media producing corporate propaganda on behalf of your corporate government. A while ago they boasted that they "fact checked" all their wikileaks-related publications with Obama administration itself. "Mr President, can we publish this or that ?" I urge to NOT believe anything NYT writes without confronting it with other sources (preferably non-corporate and non-US).

      • by dkleinsc (563838) on Tuesday March 12, 2013 @12:38PM (#43150773) Homepage

        Some more examples:
        - At Bradley Manning's trial, a case with significant national interest with major implications for whistleblowers and the freedom of the press, and for the Times itself (which had been one of the papers that had gotten the story from Wikileaks), the New York Times couldn't be bothered to send a reporter until there was a lot of public shaming of the paper about it.

        - The New York Times has admitted on many occasions to suppressing stories for the sole reason that the White House asked them to. That was true under both the Obama and Bush administrations.

        Basically, I read the New York Times the same way I'm guessing a lot of Russians read Pravda back in the day: The point isn't to discover the truth, it's to discover what the government wants you to think is the truth.

    • by Ian Alexander (997430) on Tuesday March 12, 2013 @05:33PM (#43153875)
      The funny thing is, he actually tried to go to them first. He tried the traditional media outlets and when none of them could be bothered to give him the time of day, he dumped the files to Wikileaks. He called the NYT before he went to Wikileaks, but they never called him back.

      It's all in a statement he read out at his last pre-trial hearing: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/01/bradley-manning-wikileaks-statement-full-text [guardian.co.uk]
  • Assumptions (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 12, 2013 @08:32AM (#43148089)

    Spin:
    "heedless of the risk to human rights advocates, dissidents and informants named therein"

    Reality:
    http://www.collateralmurder.com/

    • Re:Assumptions (Score:5, Informative)

      by Joce640k (829181) on Tuesday March 12, 2013 @08:51AM (#43148241) Homepage

      And it wasn't WikiLeaks who published the unedited cables. Wikileaks was careful to redact the ones they published.

      It was a Guardian Newspaper journalist who published the secret decryption key to the 'insurance' file and gave everybody access.

      • Re:Assumptions (Score:5, Informative)

        by TapeCutter (624760) on Tuesday March 12, 2013 @09:09AM (#43148427) Journal

        Wikileaks was careful to redact the ones they published.

        Yep, WL spent a couple of months redacting informants names, the Guardian, Der Speigel, and (you guessed it), the NYT, all worked on the reactions together. All 4 organizations then published the story at the same time. But at the end of the day all 4 organizations are competitors, so I'll just file it under editorial sour grapes.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Came here to rage about this. Holy bloody hell, you'd think that as a journalist Bill Keller would have done even rudimentary research into how Wikileaks operates. Actually, no, since it was such a big story directly in their field you'd kind of expect him to be cognizant of the basics.

        Seriously, what kind of revisionist history is this? Is Bill just being a bitter old fool?

      • by Burz (138833) on Tuesday March 12, 2013 @10:03AM (#43149041) Journal

        Wikileaks was being actively supported by several media outlets at the time (which IIRC included the Associated Press). As such, they were acting agents of the press doing work that the papers themselves hadn't dared for decades.

        However it was the Guardian's blunder that caused the real breech, IMO. There is no denying they bungled it.

    • Re:Assumptions (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RevDisk (740008) on Tuesday March 12, 2013 @09:13AM (#43148455) Journal
      I watched the long video. The press photographers were carrying equipment around folks with RPGs and AK-47s. They weren't wearing identification that they were media. Despite the title, it's not murder. It's mistaken identification. That is what happens in a war zone. If you hang around with combatants, on either side, do not notify both sides of your location and credentials... What the bloody heck do they think would happen?

      The best interview I saw on the whole episode was on the Colbert report. Where Colbert pointed out the obvious. Even calling it "Collateral Murder" is stepping out of the bounds of journalism and into editorial. It's fine to have an opinion. But selective editing and inaccurate wording meant to push an agenda that is not completely factual... That's propaganda, and just as bad as some/much of the whitewashing done by the DoD. Difference is, the DoD doesn't intend to be anything other than what it is.
      • Re:Assumptions (Score:5, Insightful)

        by kbg (241421) on Tuesday March 12, 2013 @11:39AM (#43150085)

        You might argue about the first strike, but the second strike was obviously targeted at the relief efforts, that is collateral murder.

  • by MrDoh! (71235) on Tuesday March 12, 2013 @08:33AM (#43148105) Homepage Journal
    I thought Manning shopped it around to all the big existing media and they didn't want to know, it was only after Wikileaks picked it up that THEN they came back. And as to unedited, Wikileaks was working with the newspapers to get the redactions done until.. The Guardian in the UK started dropping unedited stuff? Don't know for sure, a lot of finger pointing, but 99% of it always appears to be at Wikileaks and from what appeared to be going on at the time, they were doing the best they could to release slowly and carefully to avoid putting people into danger (though as pointed out, anyone who wanted this data probably already had it).
    • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday March 12, 2013 @09:01AM (#43148355) Journal

      I thought Manning shopped it around to all the big existing media and they didn't want to know, it was only after Wikileaks picked it up that THEN they came back.

      Did you read the article? That's exactly what they said in the article:

      In his statement to the military court, Manning said that before he fell in with the antisecrecy guerrillas at WikiLeaks, he tried to deliver his trove of stolen documents to The Washington Post and The New York Times. At The Post, he was put off when a reporter told him that before she could commit to anything she’d have to get a senior editor involved. At The Times, Manning said, he left a message on voice mail but never got a call back.

      The only problem with this NY Times article is that the author is completely ignorant of why a whistleblower would use something like only payphones and not e-mail to make contacts for divulging this information:

      It’s puzzling to me that a skilled techie capable of managing one of the most monumental leaks ever couldn’t figure out how to get an e-mail or phone message to an editor or a reporter at The Times, a feat scores of readers manage every day.

      DUR, well, I guess if you can't figure out why he didn't want a paper trail or electronic message then he shouldn't have given you the information after all! Did the voice mail start with "I'm calling from a payphone with a physical disc in my possession ... "? Because unless he wanted to be easily caught, I'd guess that'd be the way to go.

  • Quite simply lies (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 12, 2013 @08:35AM (#43148111)

    There is absolutely no way NYT would have touched Manning's cable archives. They would have feigned interest and then shopped him. Bill Keller knows this.

    The OP is the biggest piece of self-serving balderdash I've read in weeks. It's nauseating, and teeming with distortions and outright lies about Manning and Wikileaks.

    • by zakkie (170306) on Tuesday March 12, 2013 @09:47AM (#43148873) Homepage

      Yesterday I had 14 mod points. Today I have none. I wish I could have given them all to you for that insightful comment, rather than have them vanish. You are spot on, and sum up perfectly what the correct response to this article is.

    • I usually tune ACs out, but this was one of the most accurate descriptions of this entire fiasco that I've read.
    • The NYT would probably play by the rules for handling classified material. At best they would filter it our and post the most useful information in it. The simple truth is, if you are in the press there is a limit you can annoy the people you are publishing about.

    • Re:Quite simply lies (Score:5, Informative)

      by QRDeNameland (873957) on Tuesday March 12, 2013 @01:56PM (#43151623)

      There is absolutely no way NYT would have touched Manning's cable archives. They would have feigned interest and then shopped him. Bill Keller knows this.

      The OP is the biggest piece of self-serving balderdash I've read in weeks. It's nauseating, and teeming with distortions and outright lies about Manning and Wikileaks.

      Lest we forget...Bill Keller was the executive editor of the NYT from 2003 to 2011, and perhaps the most telling decision of his tenure was to delay the story on NSA wiretapping for over a year, until well after the 2004 election. (OK, we don't know the timing for sure, because Keller has refused to any questions about it.)

      IMHO, the man is a tool, pure and simple.

  • Gosh, I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Tuesday March 12, 2013 @08:36AM (#43148117) Journal

    I wonder if they would have simply sat on them for a year, like they did with the NSA wiretapping matter [nytimes.com] just because the feds asked them to?

    At this point, "Why didn't he leak to the Times?" is only slightly less risible than "Why didn't he just register his concerns with the chain of command?"
     

    • by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Tuesday March 12, 2013 @09:42AM (#43148815)

      At this point, "Why didn't he leak to the Times?" is only slightly less risible than "Why didn't he just register his concerns with the chain of command?"

      According to the article, he tried that too. When he uncovered what was supposed to be damning evidence of anti-Malaki propaganda was actually just an academic pamphlet on his regime (translated by a colleague), they told him to "drop it". Interesting stuff.

  • So... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AndrewX (680681) on Tuesday March 12, 2013 @08:41AM (#43148159)
    NYT to whistle blowers: "Give your leaks to us instead of lame ol' Wikileaks! *WE* will make money on.. err... I mean *WE* will keep your data safer!"
  • Heedless of the risk (Score:5, Informative)

    by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Tuesday March 12, 2013 @08:43AM (#43148181) Homepage Journal

    WikiLeaks would not have been able to post the unedited cables, as it ultimately did, heedless of the risk to human rights advocates

    That's one whopper of a half [techdirt.com] truth [nytimes.com].

    • by thue (121682)

      "Half truth"? Lie.

    • by Zalbik (308903)

      But unfortunately it is half-true.

      Wikileaks at least shares some of the blame [spiegel.de] for leaking the information. At least gross incompetence over the handling of sensitive information.

      I'm not saying the NYTimes would have done any better, but I know if I handled sensitive information in my job as clumsily as Wikileaks did, I'd be shown the door pretty damn quick.

  • by thue (121682) on Tuesday March 12, 2013 @08:45AM (#43148199) Homepage

    > WikiLeaks would not have been able to post the unedited cables, as it ultimately did, heedless of the risk to human rights advocates, dissidents and informants named therein

    The unredacted cables were published by accident, with Wikileaks and The Guardian being about equally neglectful. The op-eds claim of "[publishing] heedless of the risk" here is a lie.

    I know that it is an op-ed, and therefore not the New York Times' opinion, but the New York Times still have a responsibility to do a basic fact check before posting it.

  • by Chris Mattern (191822) on Tuesday March 12, 2013 @08:56AM (#43148287)

    What If The New York Times Still Mattered?

    • by swb (14022)

      I know I've grown more conservative as I've gotten older, but I've been a long-time reader and subscriber to the NY Times (regular reader since college, subscriber since the first Clinton administration) and for me the NY Times seems to have gotten more and more politically strident in its editorial.

      I don't mean to sound like a Fox News drone, either, but it's increasingly easy to see the Times simply avoid asking some questions in favor of others; too often it seems like the Democratic party and the left g

  • by kelemvor4 (1980226) on Tuesday March 12, 2013 @08:56AM (#43148297)
    If he'd leaked to NYT then nobody would have read the cables at all because the site is paywalled.
  • WTF?! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by slashmydots (2189826) on Tuesday March 12, 2013 @09:01AM (#43148353)
    What the fuck planet is this author from? The government would have gotten wind of it, after they likely reported it to the government, and they would have immediately handed it all over with a court gag order in place as well. Receiving stolen property is illegal. Receiving stolen government classified intel is probably more illegal. Publishing it online and in the paper is mega ultimate super-illegal so no, not a damn word of it would have gotten out. I can't believe Slashdot let this idiotic of a fantasy story through.
    • by guevera (2796207)
      You are absolutely wrong on every part of both the relevant law and the usual practice. Google New York Times vs. United States (1971) for a start. It bugs me that your comment got modded up, because it's so deeply ignorant.
  • WikiLeaks would not have been able to post the unedited cables, as it ultimately did, heedless of the risk to human rights advocates, dissidents and informants named therein.

    Either if the poster is a troll, has political motives or is just ignorant of the facts I cannot say. What I can say, is that, there are no unedited cables in the open the cables where edited to remove the names and only 3 names came out to the public, for reasons explained by the WikiLeaks team.

  • The New York times would censor anything that would piss off major politicians. They simply would not want to lose their access to these folks and as such would have buried any cables on the backpages and censored anything too embarrassing.

  • Unless you show me an internal NYT document that can be clearly shown as having been written BEFORE the wikileaks thing that describes their policy on such matters, this is all revisionist history. How many times has the NYT published something they should have either a) confirmed or b) thought twice about because it would get someone killed?

  • Well, the first thing that would happend is the in-house spooks would have leaked it to their station chief ...
  • They made a deal with a London newspaper to redact, edit, and publish many of the documents.
  • he sent them to WikiLeaks rather than the Times....

  • by davydagger (2566757) on Tuesday March 12, 2013 @11:12AM (#43149775)
    This is what this is about. The Times really didn't like Jullian Assage.

    I think its because they are titled, old newspaper snobs who think its not only their duty, but their right to decide what the people get and do not get to hear. They are pissed that things like wikileaks exist in the first place and the old order of newsmedia is being shaken up.

    The NYT thinks the people OWE the Times news stories, and they should just for them over, as if they are a perennial authority figure on everything news related.

    Again with the leaks, they think it was their sole right to censor the government cables of what and what should not be shown to the public.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/opinion/keller-wikileaks-a-postscript.html
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/28/julian-assange-press-wikileaks-documentary_n_1116599.html
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/26/new-york-times-assange-wikileaks_n_814434.html

    So althought it was not wikileaks who outed Manning, but a hacker named Adrian Lamo, who Bradley Manning bragged to about leaking the docs.

    So what got Bradley Manning caught was ultimately his own big mouth.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/03/adrian-lamo-bradley-manning-q-and-a

    This article is nothing more than some weasel words to get potential informats to go back to the news media instead of new media, for all the wrong reasons. I wreaks of typical news trickery, and self-promotion.

We will have solar energy as soon as the utility companies solve one technical problem -- how to run a sunbeam through a meter.

Working...