What If Manning Had Leaked To the New York Times? 348
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."
Assumptions (Score:4, Informative)
Spin:
"heedless of the risk to human rights advocates, dissidents and informants named therein"
Reality:
http://www.collateralmurder.com/
Hear the answer from Manning himself (Score:5, Informative)
Heedless of the risk (Score:5, Informative)
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].
Re:Assumptions (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Nobody would have known (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Left wing bird cage liner (Score:4, Informative)
NYT journalist?
Here's some fucking news, you cannot tax an economy into prosperity, unemployment is increasing and the cost of fucking hamburgers is going up thanks to Obama and all the socialists elected and supported by the NYT. They do not report news, they spin and transcribe what the elitists in government tell them to say. That's all.
What I do is none of your fucking business.
Sure you can tax into prosperity... Tax pays for services needed for prosperity, like security (police, defense), libraries, transport and communication infrastructure, education, a legal system etc at a minimum. This obviously doesn't mean that "more tax is always better", but some level of tax is needed. Providing care for the elderly and children increases the workforce and thus prosperity, but also requires funding.
The society might also find that handling things like health together through the tax system has benefits - when looked at purely through the numbers, US clearly pays far more (as %GDP) than anyone else with not very good results.
Re:Assumptions (Score:5, Informative)
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:Left wing bird cage liner (Score:5, Informative)
Be careful what you wish for.
We could always move the tax rates back to where they were when Reagan was in office.
It might actually pay for all of our military traipsing around the world.
Re:Manning is a Hero and a Traitor (Score:5, Informative)
I feel the same way, except I believe the cables should have been edited for names of the innocent and so on.
They were. Wikileaks didn't release the unedited cables, and I doubt Manning would have been willing to leak them without assurance that they would redact dangerous information. The problem was that "respectable newspapers" (The New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel) were involved in the redaction process, and The Guardian used the opportunity for a scoop. Maybe NYT is more trustworthy than The Guardian - I don't know - but it is deeply ironic that they are using this of all things as an example of being better "legally, morally, and security-wise" than Wikileaks when Wikileaks's only shortcoming was involving the likes of NYT in the first place.
Re:Left wing bird cage liner (Score:5, Informative)
Also wealth redistribution can be good for an economy. It is what made the USA the powerhouse it was. WW2 and the programs of the great depression moved lots of money into the hand of the new middle class, they spent that money thus driving the economy. A single rich person has only so many needs they will spend money on, taking that money and giving it to people who will spend it will improve the economy. Today we see the reverse with a shrinking middle class and a slowing economy as wealth accumulates in the hands of a small few.
These are just facts, they have nothing to do with the morality of such action.
Re:Assumptions (Score:0, Informative)
And it wasn't WikiLeaks who published the unedited cables. Wikileaks was careful to redact the ones they published.
You might want to check facts before speaking, although around here that's obviously not a requirement for an "Informative" rated post. I read a LOT of those cables, and frankly speaking most of them were boring drivel that didn't have anything to do with any wars at all, and didn't reveal any kind of criminal activity.
The point is that if the NYT had received a mass of cables, they would have picked through them to identify the ones which actually had newsworthy material.
And if they would have posted the infamous "helicopter video" they'd have published the whole thing instead of editing it down to make it look worse like Assange did. And before the fanboys downmod me YES that's what happened, he admitted to it, and later published the entire video. Which you can still view on Wikileaks but the site "collateralmurder" still links to the edited version.
I'm completely sickened by the absolute Idol Worship surrounding Wikileaks, Assange, and Manning these days. The site started out as a great idea, Assange fucked it all up with his political bullshit and refusal to distance himself from it. Manning may have had good intentions but he was a class A idiot about how he went about "leaking" material, and in my opinion his intentions were not noble at all.
The world needs a NEUTRAL place for leaks and whistleblowing, not a site used to pump a particular political agenda, which is what Wikileaks has become.
Re:Quite simply lies (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Why he didn't submit to the NY Times (Score:4, Informative)
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]