Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

What If Manning Had Leaked To the New York Times?

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the ellsberg-protocol dept.

Government 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."

cancel ×

348 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Left wing bird cage liner (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148059)

The sooner they go bankrupt the better.

Make them all get real jobs and start producing like the rest of us.

Re:Left wing bird cage liner (2, Funny)

fredrated (639554) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148085)

Do you produce anything besides drivel?

Re:Left wing bird cage liner (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148099)

Yes, now fuck off.

Re:Left wing bird cage liner (3, Insightful)

Calydor (739835) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148097)

Okay, I'll bite.

The end result of a journalist's work is a product (called a newspaper even if it's only rehashes of things we all know and it's posted digitally).

What's your job, and what's the end product?

Re:Left wing bird cage liner (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148185)

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.

Re:Left wing bird cage liner (2, Funny)

greg23s (1864340) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148303)

somebody forgot to take their laxatives this morning...

Re:Left wing bird cage liner (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148359)

Oh you think it's fucking funny huh? This is some kind of fucking joke? These socialist scumbags steal my money that I need to care for my family and you stupid elitist pricks all have a big laugh about the EVIL CONSERVATIVE and you pat each other on the back to cheer on yet more and more government, more regulations, more taxation, theft and erosion of the civil society.

Fuck off. Socialists are thieving lowlife scumbags and nothing else. Yes that's you.

Re:Left wing bird cage liner (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148503)

I think it's funny as hell as I drive my Mercedes-Benz MG550 to go pick up a copy of the NYT. I voted for Obama twice.

Re:Left wing bird cage liner (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148661)

Ah the elitist chimes in. Wonderful.

We know socialists want nothing more than the opportunity to take the other guys shit, and that time hasn't really come yet. But that's where we are going, make no mistake.

Mayhaps when that time does come I'll look you up. We shall see won't we.

What you lot don't understand is that I fully support your desire to drive a nice car or whatever it is that tickles your fancy. Good for you and I mean that.

Just leave me the fuck alone while you do it, but you damn well know socialism does not work in that model.

Hence, you are nothing but a lowlife scumbag, a common criminal made "wholesome" by the backing of the state - directly or indirectly.

You steal food from my disabled child and brag about it. If I were you I would shoot myself.

Re:Left wing bird cage liner (5, Insightful)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148737)

We just think it's funny that you keep calling Obama a socialist. All it shows is that you have no clue what the word means. Obama is not a socialist. The American Socialist Party doesn't even think he's a socialist.

I don't like or support Obama, but not because of his economic stance. The fact is that he'd be able to get a lot more done to help the country on the economic front if the Republicans weren't bound and determined to block everything he attempts to do.

Re:Left wing bird cage liner (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148919)

By your own tautology, whatever you are doing, you aren't doing it well enough to be compisated by the free market to support your family. The other guy your arguing with can. Instead of complaing about the government, you should be focusing on earning enough to do it by yourself. The socialists aren't your problem, you are.

Re:Left wing bird cage liner (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43149087)

Mayhaps when that time does come I'll look you up.

Why wait I'll drive down to the trailer park right now

Re:Left wing bird cage liner (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148697)

Well laugh now buddy, because your prosperity is gonna be short lived.

Re:Left wing bird cage liner (5, Informative)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148541)

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:Left wing bird cage liner (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148783)

Haha, it's funny because you're stupid.

Re:Left wing bird cage liner (5, Insightful)

Looker_Device (2857489) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148957)

you stupid elitist pricks all have a big laugh about the EVIL CONSERVATIVE and you pat each other on the back to cheer on yet more and more government, more regulations, more taxation, theft and erosion of the civil society.

You know, it takes a truly exception level of delusion to think that it's the elite in this country who want more taxes on themselves, and the average working people who want to cut all benefit programs and social safety nets for the average working people.

Yes, I'm sure all the billionaire power-brokers in this country are all Democrats who just hate it when Republicans pass tax breaks and pro-corporate laws that benefit themselves greatly. "Oh no, please make me pay more taxes and take away these laws that allow me to lord over the poor like a God!" I can hear Donald Trump and the Koch brothers saying.

Tell me, what color is the sky in your world?

Re:Left wing bird cage liner (3, Informative)

teg (97890) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148351)

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:Left wing bird cage liner (5, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148633)

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:Left wing bird cage liner (3, Funny)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148725)

But see, that changes as soon as you call that rich person a Job Creator. A Job Creator can spend infinite money creating jobs, whereas the middle class will waste in on pointless things like mortgages, new technology, and transportation.

Re:Left wing bird cage liner (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148801)

A yes the mythical supply side economic system. One in which the rich hire poor people because they simply have too much profit in their companies. No matter how many folks are standing around getting paid to scratch their asses the "Job Creator" hires more and more workers as his revenue goes up or taxes go down.

These people must believe that the rich are no smarter than your average house cat.

Re:Left wing bird cage liner (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148847)

Your "facts" are woefully flawed. For one thing we've been building our national deficit doing exactly what you've described since WW2. Each administration has gleefully kicked the can down the road, and we are coming to a breaking point where the can is at a dead end road with no where to go. At that point in time we will see what the facts really are. We've spent everything we have in the most wasteful way possible and now we're all going to live with the consequences. That's what the facts are.

If you think wealth redistribution is a good thing let's personalize it for a moment. Let's say you go to work every day. You save for a year to buy a new flat screen TV. Your neighbor sits at home and smokes crack all day. He doesn't think it's fair that you have a flat screen TV and he doesn't. So he breaks into your house (while you're at work of course) and takes yours. He likes his new TV and hey you can always save for another year and go buy another one. Two days later he's out of crack and sells your TV for 10% of what you paid to buy more crack. That's the reality of wealth redistribution. The reason these people who are poor do not have weath is because they have not earned wealth making wise choices. The reason the ones that do have wealth have it is because they've earned it. A further consequence of course is that you're not very likely to go to work everyday if it means that everything you earn is just going to be taken from you. What kind of an idiot would?

Re:Left wing bird cage liner (5, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148889)

Comeback without the strawman and total misunderstanding of systemic poverty and we can talk. Until then, fuck off.

Re:Left wing bird cage liner (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148963)

Not sure why mods thought this was flamebait initially. It sure looks like a reasonable contribution to the thread, regardless of whether anyone agrees or disagrees.

Re:Left wing bird cage liner (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148999)

Because Troll and Flamebait are used since Slashdot has no "-1 conflicts with my ideology" moderation option.

I even address the fact that I was not supporting such a thing, but people still get upset if they see any remark that conflicts with their worldview.

Re:Left wing bird cage liner (3, Insightful)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149117)

A creationist can come onto here and "conflict with my ideology" and still sound like an idiot and get modded down appropriately. Some ideologies (namely those parroted by Fox "News" watchers) are stupid and deserve to be ridiculed.

Re:Left wing bird cage liner (5, Interesting)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148979)

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.

One of the clearest indications that political thought is an oxymoron is the idea that everything must come in only 2 flavors and nothing between, and that all lines must be straight lines.

Reality isn't that tidy. There is a point where too little taxes fail society and a point where too much tax crushes. There's also a spot in between. Or actually, more of a blob, since there are a lot of variables in the equation. The blob can be larger or smaller or even inside-out depending on whether your demands exceed supply.

We are the most spoiled generation in all human history. We have all - even the eldest - spent all, or nearly all of our lives expecting things to become cheaper every day. Sure, we howl about inflation, but the truth is, anything electronic has been chasing Moore's law for decades, and almost everything we do any more ties into something electronic, even if it's just just sitting down at the PC and figuring out when to plant the South 40.

Matters only got worse when offshoring became economically viable. We've come to expect that Lower Prices Every Day is a right, and not simply being in the right place at the right time. No 16th-century farmer expected next year to require less effort or money to survive than last year.

So we do foolish things like lower taxes right before a recession is due when we should have been saving the money for when the rains came and lowering taxes afterwards. And compound it, by fighting to keep the taxes low even as we embark on expensive campaigns.

There's almost always something that isn't really necessary in any budget, whether it's personal, corporate, or government. And tough times help provide incentive for getting rid of it. Still, historically, we are used to being able to prosper while paying far more tax than we have for the last 10 years. And, frankly, the last 10 years have mostly been pretty miserable, so I don't buy the whole "lower taxes = more prosperity" line. If it can't work in a period that long, I'll likely die before it works at all - if it ever does. Ergo, it's useless for my purposes.

The one thing that more government money can do that no one else can, is spend money when no one else dares to. Governments don't have to show a profit (and shouldn't!), nor do they have to be concerned over-much about daily expenses. They can keep on cranking regardless, and if it isn't very efficient, nonetheless, it keeps money in circulation instead of being hoarded. Hoarded money doesn't really do anyone any good. Not even the hoarders. Until you spend it, money is just potential.

Re:Left wing bird cage liner (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148393)

You sound like a petulant child. There is no "socialism" in Somalia, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Re:Left wing bird cage liner (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148591)

His business is being unemployed.

Re:Left wing bird cage liner (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148203)

My bird disagrees. He says it's just more war mongering, lapdog press, like the Washington Post.

Re:Left wing bird cage liner (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148811)

Make them all get real jobs and start producing like the rest of us.

Maybe your mother could teach them how to give handjobs and blowjobs for money.

Why he didn't submit to the NY Times (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148083)

He wanted it to get out.

Re:Why he didn't submit to the NY Times (4, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148383)

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.

Assumptions (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148089)

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

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

Re:Assumptions (5, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148241)

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 (5, Informative)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148427)

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:Assumptions (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148691)

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?

Re:Assumptions (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148729)

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:Assumptions (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148855)

Yeah, sort of like how John Wayne Gacey was really a nice guy, but the evil booksellers only want to write a few hours of his life that make him look all "evil".

Murder is murder. The other parts of your day don't change that fact.

Re:Assumptions (3, Insightful)

tilante (2547392) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148895)

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.

So... I take it you don't know what "redact" means? Because nothing you said there contradicts what the poster you're replying to said.

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 that's just the thing. They would have picked through to identify what they thought was newsworthy. And since human labor is expensive, they probably would have done it by a bunch of keyword searches, then reading the ones that the searches caught on - or, more likely, getting some interns to read those.

By publishing all the cables, Wikileaks allowed the public to determine for themselves what is and isn't important, and allowed a "many eyeballs see all things" approach.

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.

Don't know anything about that, so can't comment on it.

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.

Until someone starts one, though, Wikileaks is what we have. Anyone who wants to make a leak site with another slant is free to - having multiple ones would be a good thing!

Re:Assumptions (3, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148901)

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.

Do you know what redacting is...?

More to it than that... (4, Insightful)

Burz (138833) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149041)

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 (5, Insightful)

RevDisk (740008) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148455)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148459)

Yeah, instead of editing the information and presenting it to the world, we got a propoganda video on youtube. Moron.

Fuck wikileaks. Bunch of self-important douchery.

Re:Assumptions (0)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148871)

Manning was a danger to nobody... except maybe Anna Nicole Smith [guardian.co.uk] , who just happens to be dead by the way...

But seriously, the weather... when someone actually has real info that could be what you might call 'embarrassing', we all know the routine [voltairenet.org] .

Government/corporate secrets are quite safe.

Hear the answer from Manning himself (5, Informative)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148093)

Re:Hear the answer from Manning himself (1)

AdamStarks (2634757) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148141)

After reading Manning's response to that question, I have to ask how many such tips those news outlets get each day. If he really wanted to release the docs to them, couldn't he have just... released the docs to them? Maybe I'm just not familiar enough with the modus operandi for large whistleblower intel dumps.

all well and good after the fact (4, Interesting)

MrDoh! (71235) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148105)

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).

Re:all well and good after the fact (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148355)

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 (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#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.

Re:Quite simply lies (3, Insightful)

zakkie (170306) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148873)

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.

Gosh, I wonder... (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148117)

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?"
 

Re:Gosh, I wonder... (4, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about a year and a half ago | (#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.

What was the point? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148125)

It was a pretty stupid set of documents to leak. Diplomatic cables. Nothing earth-shattering. Nothing anyone really cared about. Ruined his life for nothing, really.

Manning is a Hero and a Traitor (0)

garcia (6573) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148139)

From the article:

The most important thing that would not be much different if The Times had been his outlet would be Manningâ(TM)s legal liability. The law provides First Amendment protection for a free press, but not for those who take an oath to protect government secrets. This administration has a particular, chilling intolerance for leakers â" and digital footprints make them easier to catch these days â" but I canâ(TM)t imagine that any administration would have hesitated to prosecute Manning.

As an American and Global citizen I want to fucking hug Bradley Manning. I want to thank him repeatedly for the great service he has provided the entire world. He is a true hero in my eyes.

However, he's also a fucking traitor and deserves the punishment which is coming to him. People who are true heroes do not think about the potential consequences they face and do not look for a way out when those happen. They do things to save others, bring about change, etc and they do so selflessly. Manning broke laws and oaths he had to this country just like many others practicing civil disobedience before him. They all paid their price and so will he and I will still love every last piece of information he released.

The fact that The Times would not have published everything shows what a bunch garbage the mainstream press in this country has become. Journalists are the lackeys of corporate legal teams, chickenshits and oppressive management.

Let the heroes shine and let them take whatever comes of them once the protections afforded to journalists run out and the source must be provided.

Again, thank you Manning; I personally put your accomplishments far higher than many of those who have received medals before you even though you deserve every punishment that is coming to you.

Re:Manning is a Hero and a Traitor (0)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148225)

I feel the same way, except I believe the cables should have been edited for names of the innocent and so on.

That said, I thoroughly agree that the issue of punishment is one you accept going into doing what you believe is right. It seems people believe the law should never punish people for doing the right thing, but that's not how it works. As it stands, he deserves his punishment because he got caught and he's also a hero to anyone who cares about what's really going on in the world.

Re:Manning is a Hero and a Traitor (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148325)

I believe the cables should have been edited for names of the innocent and so on.
 
Um, what? Are you serious? You people still don't get it, do you?
 
No one... NO ONE went over these documents one by one to find out what was really being leaked. No one took the consideration that they could be putting innocent parties into harms way into account before these documents were dumped. This isn't real whistle blowing. That's why I have no compassion for Manning or those from WikiLeaks. This was irresponsible.

Re:Manning is a Hero and a Traitor (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148587)

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:Manning is a Hero and a Traitor (4, Insightful)

magic maverick (2615475) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148357)

Unfortunately there's no, "you're an idiot" mod, so I'll leave you unmoderated and tell you directly. If Manning really did leak this information then yes, he's a hero. But he's not a traitor, and he deserves no punishment. He deserves what any hero does, but unfortunately he's getting what heroes too often get. Instead of praise and thanks for highlighting evil, and exposing dark secrets, he's getting punished for it. But that's to be expected, what evil organization actually likes being exposed as evil when they try and pretend otherwise?

People like to say, "oh, you broke the law, accept the consequences", but fuck that shit. If the law is wrong (and any law that forbids a person to revel wrong doing on the scale reveled by Manning, is wrong), then it is your duty to break it. And then to evade injustice. E.g. the mafia come and say, "we'll protect your shop from someone firebombing it", but if you reject their offer, you still have the right to defend your shop yourself from firebombing (which will come from the mafia). The mafia are the government, demanding you accept their laws or face the consequences they decided on.

Re:Manning is a Hero and a Traitor (2, Interesting)

wiredlogic (135348) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148775)

He's not a hero. He violated his contract with the US government. All claims to moral superiority on his part are void since he had no authorization to handle the materials in the first place and the indiscriminate nature of what he collected.

That being said I'd like to know who in the chain of command is going to be held responsible for the utter lack of operational security that made it possible for Manning to copy the files in the first place. Obviously nobody will because the higher ups are all going to have their asses covered by the Manning / Assange shitstorm that's been concocted to distract everyone.

Re:Manning is a Hero and a Traitor (2)

zakkie (170306) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148909)

He's not a hero. He violated his contract with the US government.

Those two are not mutually exclusive; in fact, I'd consider them quite strongly linked. The global bully who goes around kicking sand in others' faces is the US and has been for at least 35 years, possibly longer.

Re:Manning is a Hero and a Traitor (4, Interesting)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149035)

He violated his contract with the US government.

- OMG and the US government has violated its contract with the entire USA, with all the people and all the States.

USA government was supposed to protect and defend the Constitution and the principles of individual rights, instead it's killing off individuals and is taking a long, stinking dump on the Constitution. It doesn't matter that somebody who signed up TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION is not following the orders of the system, that is clearly is violating its own oath to do the same.

He did not sign up to protect the government, he signed up to protect the Constitution.

Manning is doing his job, the rest of the government is not.

Re:Manning is a Hero and a Traitor (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148505)

As an American and Global citizen I want to fucking hug Bradley Manning. I want to thank him repeatedly for the great service he has provided the entire world. He is a true hero in my eyes.

The rest goes on and basically says: "Too fucking bad that you have to rot in jail. Tough shit, you should have known better."

Then...

Again, thank you Manning; I personally put your accomplishments far higher than many of those who have received medals before you even though you deserve every punishment that is coming to you.

So says the guy without any skin in the game.

If he's such a hero to you, how about helping him out? How about sticking up for him or helping him or his family financially?

And as far as paying the consequences, most of the folks I've seen (famous) who used civil disobedience over blatant atrocious behavior would spend a token amount of time in jail and then get out due to plublic outrage and embarrassment of the people or government they exposed.

Also, his oaths do not force him to to keep quiet when illegal activities are going on.

The military was committing crimes, got exposed, and they're crucifying this guy with a conscious.

Re:Manning is a Hero and a Traitor (4, Insightful)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148543)

The law is not an absolute concept. It is a convention full of flaws. When someone breaks an unfair laws he does not "deserve" punishment, even if he does it knowing he will get it, and if in the end he does not get the punishment much for the better, although it seldom happens.

Re:Manning is a Hero and a Traitor (4, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148561)

However, he's also a fucking traitor and deserves the punishment which is coming to him

- I suppose he is a 'traitor' in the same way that an SS soldier would have been in Nazi units designed to burn people alive in concentration camps, for releasing the real information about the atrocities for all the public to find out.

USA government kills civilian children on daily basis with bombs, that's part of the information released by Manning. I don't give a shit what the literal legality is of what he did, he is not a traitor, the US government is the traitor of the principles that the country was founded upon.

USA government, every single fucker in it that knew and authorised that knows and authorises murder of people on daily basis should be rotting in jail, Manning is a normal person that became part of a completely corrupt, oppressive, ridiculously blood thirsty system and he did not stand for it. By releasing this information he notifies the public what atrocities are done in their name under the pretence of 'protecting the Constitution', while in reality completely abandoning the Constitution and destroying every principle that the USA Republic was founded upon.

Re:Manning is a Hero and a Traitor (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148679)

This country was founded on the principals of voting only for landed gentry, slavery and theft of land from the natives.

I don't see how bombing brown children is outside the scope of the above.

Should we strive to do better? Yes, but lets not pretend this nation was founded by Saints.

Re:Manning is a Hero and a Traitor (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148809)

Unless you are the one pretending that 'country was founded by saints', then I don't know who is saying that.

James Madison:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

Nobody says that USA was founded by saints. Personally I would not have ratified the Constitution that did not recognise all people as equals. However USA was founded on some principles in the first place (and by the way, limiting suffrage to land owners was one of those principles, and I completely agree with it, land owners were the ones paying taxes, but today it cannot be limited just to land owners, but it must be limited at the most to the people who are paying taxes)

People who are not paying taxes but instead are living off of a subsidy shouldn't be allowed to vote, that's my position. But that's a side issue.

We have here Bradley Manning, the man stands alone against the tyrannical oppressive regime, that clearly does NOT protect and defend the Constitution, it does NOT stand for actual individual rights, instead it abuses them.

The man must not be punished even though he broke the literal law! He must not be punished, unless as a society your stance is: we don't care what is done in our name and our principles be damned, if you just go against the literal law, you should be punished in the most crazy manner, so that any such transgressions by anybody else in the future are prevented at the root.

Without such law breaking we could in principle still have some actual remnants of slavery in a society, and now we do, the individuals are the slaves to be punished by the collective. Bradley Manning is an individual and the collective is collectively punishing him for being one and to ensure that others stay as the collective and never have any individual thoughts of their own.

Re:Manning is a Hero and a Traitor (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148875)

Disenfranchising the poor is simply evil. Its only purpose is to ensure an underclass that can be continually exploited.

Almost all the people who think are leaches are most likely getting back SS money they paid or are the working poor. Hopefully when you retire you will stop voting. I know you need to feel superior to someone but dumping on the poor is not very classy.

I have no interest in your randian fantasies, take that drivel elsewhere.

Manning got caught violating his oath, he will be punished. If he had found actual interesting violations this would be reduced. As far as I can tell all he did was discover sad normal truths of war. Innocents will be accidentally killed, and diplomats will say bad things about each other.

Re:Manning is a Hero and a Traitor (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148989)

Disenfranchising the poor is simply evil. Its only purpose is to ensure an underclass that can be continually exploited.

- using discrimination against a voting minority by setting up mobocracy, that always votes to steal from the few and give to themselves is what causes destruction of the economy that you are now observing. What is evil is to destroy the economy by doing this exact thing, because the people who will be most hurt by it will be those very 'disenfranchised' poor. The people who most benefit from the limitations placed upon government, because they are in most need of the free market economy that actually does raise all boats. The fact that they may not realise it does not negate it.

And yes, those who are no longer in the work force should not have the same bearing on the political system as those, who are actively working and paying into the system, correct. You have a major voting block of the older wealthier people, constantly voting themselves a subsidy from the young, poor people, and the government is the proxy for this discrimination and injustice and it's happy to oblige, because the politicians are the ones gaining the most. The retired would be much better served by a strong dollar and a healthy interest rate, as they are on fixed incomes and many have actual savings that they are eating into as well as the government does by inflation. Taxing the working to subsidise the retired is completely wrong of-course, and SS should have never existed in the first place, people shouldn't be paying higher and higher taxes to subsidise the currently retired and thus being denied the ability to save for their own retirement.

Anyway, you will learn in some not so distant future that there is no magic and that all subsidies and such obvious ponzi scams end, and they end badly.

As to Manning - it does not matter what secret oath to the dear leader system he might have given, the people OUTSIDE of that circle should not stand for it, they should be completely against their government destroying the very principles that their nation is founded upon.

By NOT standing against the government and for Manning, the people are signing their own jail sentence and a possible death warrant. The government that has no fear of the people but instead instills fear and hate into the people is the government that imprisons the people. As I said, USA was not founded on principles of blindly following orders.

In fact USA fought a war against a monarch that would have US people following his orders, the US people fought against that oppression and now it's time to recognise that their government is that same monarch, only with more weapons.

Re:Manning is a Hero and a Traitor (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149037)

Without SS their will be old people begging in the streets. The simple fact is either through their own mistakes or by unfortunate circumstances many people will never have enough money to retire. When they can no longer work either we can help them or allow them to starve on the street. No amount of your ideology will change reality.

The free market does not raise all boats equally, that is a myth. Again, look at history not ideology.

Re:Manning is a Hero and a Traitor (0)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149091)

Without SS their will be old people begging in the streets.

- yeah yeah, political nonsensical propaganda. SS is only one way to retire, people have saved for their retirement during their entire existence on this planet. Somehow they managed to do it without government meddling for most of the human existence, I don't believe they need a government to tell them how to live their lives, how to save, how to raise their children, etc.

The good thing about all ponzi scams of-course is that they all eventually fail, the bad thing about the one that is going to fail fairly soon, is how much damage it will do. Of-course the us dollar and bond collapse will bring about the high inflation (possibly higher than high), since the entire USA economy now is predicated upon one single thing: the Fed printing press (figuratively speaking, they don't need to print to dilute the worth of the currency nowadays). And so the checks may still come but they won't buy anything, that will be quite a shock, not dissimilar to that of what happened during the collapse of the previous bubbles, but this one will be much worse, since it's the purchasing power of the dollar that will go down the drain and there will be no products to buy as the foreigners won't sell them for paper anymore.

But again, that's not the point of this story, in this story we are talking about a MAN who in fact is DOING HIS JOB.

Bradley Manning is doing his job, he is doing what he swore an oath to do: defend and protect the Constitution.

It is the USA government that is NOT doing its job, it's not protecting and defending the Constitution, it's shitting on the Constitution, and the people are going to let that government punish the MAN who is doing what he promised to do.

Great stuff, totally in synch with the times.

Re:Manning is a Hero and a Traitor (1)

Ironchew (1069966) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149123)

USA government kills civilian children on daily basis with bombs, that's part of the information released by Manning. I don't give a shit what the literal legality is of what he did, he is not a traitor

USA government, every single fucker in it that knew and authorised that knows and authorises murder of people on daily basis should be rotting in jail, Manning is a normal person that became part of a completely corrupt, oppressive, ridiculously blood thirsty system and he did not stand for it.

Thank you, roman_mir, for telling it like it is. I often rage at your comments, but it's good to see that we agree on some important things.

Re:Manning is a Hero and a Traitor (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148773)

The cognitive dissonance you display is staggering.

So... (4, Insightful)

AndrewX (680681) | about a year and a half ago | (#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!"

New York TImes says (1)

AdamStarks (2634757) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148169)

"If we'd been given the material by Manning, we wouldn't have done NEARLY as thorough a job as Wikileaks!"

I'll admit I didn't RTFA, as I don't have an account there :P

Heedless of the risk (4, Informative)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148181)

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:Heedless of the risk (2)

thue (121682) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148255)

"Half truth"? Lie.

Controlled Media (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148193)

Sadly news media like the New York Times are simply not free to publish. They are vulnerable to government and there can be no real recourse if government acts against them. Worse yet they are vulnerable to large and small business people. For example crime reporting does not encourage people to be out and about shopping, eating in restaurants, and simply being consumers. News media garner their money from advertizing and certain kinds of reporting simply generate ire from advertisers. The end result is the sing-song, happy faced, mild and gentle style of reporting that we so often are force fed. Conversely, hard hitting investigative reporting is expensive, is a legal mine field waiting to blow the legs off of a newspaper, and gets one in deep trouble with advertisers.
                    The results are a highly controlled news media. In many towns and cities if the public really was aware of what happens daily they would be at home hiding under their beds.

Re:Controlled Media (3, Insightful)

clonehappy (655530) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148311)

OK, big shot. Why don't you go ahead and tell me what rampant crime is running through our neighborhoods that isn't being reported on. Because I can tell you, with an extremely high level of confidence, that every single act of violence or criminality is taken by the media to be sensationalized and spun as a talking point for whatever agenda they are being paid to promote this week. Unless of course those acts of violence or criminality are being perpetuated by the people paying them the money, in which case yes, you won't hear a thing about it.

But the kinds of crimes that those people are perpetuating aren't the kind that make you batten down the hatches and dive under your bed. As a matter of fact, as far as real, violent crime is concerned, it's at it's lowest level in decades. But turn on the local ActionNews, and you'd think we're living in some post-apocalyptic Mad Max world, where just going outside is going to get you robbed and killed.

Funny, really. Because when I go outside, I still see the birds and the bees and the trees and things seem to be just like they've always been. It's all a matter of perspective.

If leaked to the NY Times, only Chinese would know (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148195)

If Manning had leaked to the NY Times, only the Chinese hackers would know for sure what he leaked.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57566810/new-york-times-chinese-hackers-attacked-our-computers-for-months/ [cbsnews.com]

Come to think of it, why are all these news orgs outing themselves as being hacked? Is it to provide some sort of plausible denial that they are the ones who someone leaked something important?

The New York Times publishes lies (4, Insightful)

thue (121682) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148199)

> 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.

Re:The New York Times publishes lies (1)

tinkerton (199273) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148637)

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.

actually, they do. But it varies massively.

Here's a story about how it took three months of jumping through hoops to get a single op-ed published : http://mondoweiss.net/2012/02/how-sarah-schulman-managed-to-get-pinkwashing-into-the-new-york-times.html [mondoweiss.net] . It wasn't nice to Israel you see.

In defense of the nytimes, it does make sense to be a lot more careful when you're publishing something that will get you into trouble.It also makes sense to be risk averse and many editors are very risk averse.

Only, good journalism means looking for trouble. It means you're going after those with power - and unfortunately they can hit back.So good journalism easily gets squeezed out.
Still, the nytimes is a large paper. I think it has room for good journalism, even if it doesn't make the first pages. But the high profile articles, they can really suck.

It would still be treason (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148269)

And he should still be hanged for it.

Alternate title: (5, Funny)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148287)

What If The New York Times Still Mattered?

Nobody would have known (3, Informative)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148297)

If he'd leaked to NYT then nobody would have read the cables at all because the site is paywalled.

"If Manning" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148329)

"'If Manning had delivered his material to The Times"

I would bet 99% of the information would never had seen the light of day. The press and government are far too intertwined these days, investigative journalism is virtually dead. Most "articles" are press releases that are copy/pasted from their source with a few comments by the "writer" of the article.

What if Manning had leaked INFORMATION, not data? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148331)

The problem with Manning's case is that, rather than finding actual glaring examples of wrongdoing, he just copied everything and offered the raw data.

  Supposedly, he was so outraged by the rampant abuses perpetrated by the US that he was compelled to get the truth out. But rather than actually highlighting those outrageous abuses and revealing them, he just dropped a huge infodump of mostly boring government paperwork and said, "Oh, yeah, there's some really heinous stuff in there, yeah, so heinous that I'll let you all dig through it all and find it for yourself!"

That doesn't exactly get journalists excited. Most of them have deadlines, after all.

WTF?! (2, Insightful)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#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.

Re:WTF?! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148607)

Everything in your post about receiving is wrong; at the least it is gray.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

Just informing you and anyone who reads you. If you have to use hedge words like 'probably' take a minute to research the subject before posting.

Re:WTF?! (2)

guevera (2796207) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148735)

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.

never known (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148419)

Then we would have never known about the leak or Manning as the NYT's are willing co-conspirators with our federal govmt.

There we go again (1)

jbssm (961115) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148449)

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.

No one would know about it (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148513)

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.

What if...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148583)

None of this would be known: Revealed: Pentagon's link to Iraqi [guardian.co.uk]

Dotdotdot (1)

borl (586949) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148831)

Undo modding post...

It's really easy to say this now (1)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148849)

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?

On the other hand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148853)

Being a Patriot I think we should do all we can do to protect the country and that sometimes means keeping secrets.

I do think everyone should be treated the same. It does not seem fair to prosecute WikiLeaks for excepting information and reporting on it when other Media organization have done the same in the past.

In 1992, Ted Gup of the The Washington Post revealed a classified, underground facility, named "Project Greek Island" at The Greenbrier Hotel in West Virginia. The bunker was completed in 1962 at a cost of $14,069,000 and remained secret for 30 years. Ted Gup was never charged for revealing government secrets or made to pay back any of the tax payers money that was lost.

I just think if a reporter from the Washington post can report on top secret data then we should allow any reporting agency to do the same.

Non issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148945)

It would have ended up being some small little story, A summary of the events, and it would have ended there.

What If Manning Had Leaked To the New York Times? (1)

dgharmon (2564621) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148975)

Well, the first thing that would happend is the in-house spooks would have leaked it to their station chief ...

I read those Wikileaks in the NYTimes (1)

peter303 (12292) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149133)

They made a deal with a London newspaper to redact, edit, and publish many of the documents.

Uh, he'd tried "MSM". Weren't interested. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43149139)

Because the news agencies would lose "embedded" status and therefore have no breaking news on many things. They need to scoop or they'll lose advertisers willing to advertise there.

And what's to say that NYT would have edited the cables? DoD were asked to help WL but they preferred to risk their people than to aid a leak of actions that were not legal, so the NYT would either have had to not print them at all or dump them like WL did.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>