Based on that, Greenwald claims that Wired's "concealment" of the chat logs "is actively blinding journalists and others who have been attempting to learn what Manning did and did not do." (That's one sentence.
He goes on in that vein for quite a while.) But the *Times * story is incorrect, as we noted on the day after it ran.
The result was our groundbreaking report in June confirming the arrest of Pfc.
Bradley Manning on suspicion of passing classified material to Wiki Leaks, a central thread in what is arguably one of the most important news stories of the year.
[Update 12/31/10 EST: The When we didn't meet the urgent Yuletide deadline he'd imposed on himself to publish a piece about a 10-day-old newspaper article, he wrote in his column that we "ignored the inquiries," adding: "This is not the behavior of a journalist seeking to inform the public, but of someone eager, for whatever reasons, to hide the truth." story repeated Lamo's personal theory that Manning passed some information to Wiki Leaks by physically handing off disks to friends at MIT. government] source close to the case.") We've heard and read that theory before, but have not reported it, for lack of evidence.
Successfully winning trust from people with little to gain and much to lose, while vigorously verifying the facts at hand and maintaining the highest ethical standards, is a balancing act that few reporters ever master completely.
In the five years I've worked with Poulsen, I've seen him successfully balance these unpredictable forces not once or twice, but literally dozens of times.
At his most reasonable, Greenwald impugns our motives, attacks the character of our staff and carefully selects his facts and sources to misrepresent the truth and generate outrage in his readership.
In his latest screed, "The Worsening Journalistic Disgrace at Wired," he devotes 12 paragraphs to a misinformed argument centering on a Dec.
The Case for Privacy ——————–Six months ago, senior editor Kevin Poulsen came to me with a whiff of a story.