Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald has alleged that Wired senior editor Kevin Poulsen refuses to publish what Greenwald calls “key evidence” in the arrest of Bradley Manning for leaking sensitive information to WikiLeaks. The evidence consists of a transcript of one or more online chat sessions (“chat logs”) between Adrian Lamo and Manning. At the time, Lamo—a convicted felon with a history of mental health issues—was working as a government informant against Manning and provided the chat logs to Poulsen. Allegedly, in the chat session(s), Manning confessed to having been the WikiLeaks source.
Last June, Wired published some subset of the chat logs in its story about Manning’s then-secret arrest. Greenwald alleges that since then, Poulsen has refused to publish the rest of the chat logs or answer questions about what information the chat logs contain. Greenwald alleges journalistic malfeasance on the part of Poulsen and Wired: “This is easily one of the worst journalistic disgraces of the year: It is just inconceivable that someone who claims to be a ‘journalist’—or who wants to be regarded as one—would actively conceal from the public, for months on end, the key evidence in a political story that has generated headlines around the world.”
While Greenwald raised the malfeasance issue last June (on the heels of Wired’s original story), he writes that he’s revisiting it because Lamo has been “making increasingly sensationalistic claims about what Manning told him.” That Lamo’s claims have driven the corporate media coverage of WikiLeaks is not in dispute. These claims are reported without any verification; claims that Greenwald maintains Poulsen may be able to verify or refute. Greenwald also points to “previously undisclosed facts” about a relationship between Paulson and Wired and “a key figure in Manning’s arrest.”
Greenwald goes on to discuss the undisclosed Wired, Poulsen, and Lamo connection to Mark Rasch. Rasch, a minor Wired contributor, and the former head of the US Department of Justice’s Computer Crimes Unit, is the individual who investigated Poulsen in the mid-1990s leading to convictions for mail, wire, and computer fraud, money laundering, and obstruction of justice. Rasch, Greenwald asserts, “is the person who put Lamo in touch with federal law authorities in order to inform on Manning.” As Greenwald points out, repeatedly, what is most disturbing about these interrelationships is that no one knows just when, how, and why Manning began talking to Lamo. Greenwald asserts that this is being “actively hidden” by Poulsen and Wired.
Wired editor-in-chief Evan Hansen and senior editor Kevin Poulsen responded to Greenwald’s assertions maintaining that Wired did (and has done) nothing wrong in pursuing the story of Manning’s arrest. Hansen asserts that Poulsen’s history as a cracker and conviction have “no bearing” on the matter and this is merely a case of Greenwald shooting the messenger. “The bottom line is that Wired.com did not have anything to do with Manning’s arrest,” Hansen writes. “We discovered it and reported it: Faithfully, factually, and with nuanced appreciation of the ethical issues involved.” With regard to the chat logs, Hansen cites the inclusion of “sensitive personal information with no bearing on WikiLeaks” and asserts their publication would “serve no purpose.”
As Greenwald writes in his response to the Wired response, Wired has failed to “release or even comment on what is the central evidence in what is easily one of the most consequential political stories of this year….” Wired could easily respond to Greenwald’s assertions and clearly resolve the issue by simply naming a special ombudsman—just off the top of my head, I’d suggest Jay Rosen or Dan Gillmor—giving him or her unrestricted access to the complete body of the chat logs, and relying on his or her professional judgment and discretion. This is simply too important of an issue to devolve into a web pissing match.
0 responses. Comments closed for this article.