Late last night Wired editor Evan Hansen responded to Glenn Greenwald’s request for Wired to release the full Lamo-Manning chat logs with a pretty broad personal attack Glenn. It was heavy on melodrama, light on details. Not exactly an Edward R. Murrow moment.
In his post, Hansen says:
The bottom line is that Wired.com did not have anything to do with Manning’s arrest. We discovered it and reported it: faithfully, factually and with nuanced appreciation of the ethical issues involved.
Ironically, those ethics are now being pilloried, presumably because they have proven inconvenient for critics intent on discrediting Lamo.
Note the “discrediting Lamo” link: it goes to the FDL page that logs key articles and interviews regarding Bradley Manning, Adrian Lamo and Wikileaks. The articles are presented in a sortable table so that anyone can search them, or simply read through them, to see how Adrian Lamo contradicts himself over and over again regarding the contents of the chat logs.
In his own words.
Over the past few days, FDL readers have worked hard to transcribe every available recorded interview with Adrian Lamo, and their work has made it manifestly clear that Lamo consistently makes contradictory claims for what appears in the chat logs. Further, Lamo has made statements that contradict Wired’s own reporting on the matter.
I’m proud of the citizen journalism here at FDL that was used by Glenn Greenwald to meticulously document many of the inconsistencies in the Wired narrative, and which will no doubt continue to be used as the Lamo-Manning story evolves over time. I hope at the very least it has put an end to outlets like the New York Times using Lamo as a source for front page stories without going back and looking at what Lamo has said (or hasn’t said) in the past, because there is no excuse now.
Here are the chat logs, here are the previous Lamo interviews, and here is a timeline of events. Any journalist writing on the subject can easily make themselves familiar with the history of what has been said and written, and they should be responsible for making sure that anything they produce is contextualized within that.
I’m not sure why Hansen thinks transcribing interviews and logging articles qualifies as “discrediting Lamo.” Lamo’s own words and actions are responsible for any indictment being made in the press, and Wired’s decision to sit on the chat logs makes them an active participant in whatever claims Lamo makes about their contents.
If Hansen doesn’t think the credibility of the key source for Wired’s reporting on this story can hold up when simply compared to his own words, I’d say they’ve got bigger problems than Glenn Greenwald.