What do you think of WikiLeaks?

I think you're probably right.

And I think that - and have always thought that - it is odd that since the Internet came about, people are more comfortable dropping bombs via faceless start-ups then they are through mainstream media outlets and reporters with more than a century, often, of credibility built up.

For example, look at how often that stories break initially on college football message board posts. You have to separate the wheat from the chaff, but quite often big news appears in those places first. That's where people go now with tips. We need to somehow steer them back to us, but I'm not sure how.

 

The answer is sort of in the question.

As long as we (meaning the legacy press) require a second source to verify information - whether it's a high school recruiting story or a war crime - we're always going to finish out of the money to low-threshold web operations.

 

Asking you seriously: Is this just a rhetorical question or do you have an opinion?

 

Yes -

Do you think that The Times would have publised the Pentagon Papers today?

Do you think The Times would have published current stuff if Manning had come direct to them?

What are the chances that Manning did come to news organization first and they directed him to Wiki Leaks?

 

My questions were directed to Tarheel316, whose post directly preceded mine.

I'm not sure why my questions - rhetorical or not - provoke such consternation.

- Do I think the Pentagon Papers would be published today? Yes. (Do I think they should be? Yes.)

- I think if Manning - or whomever leaked the materials - brought that material directly to the Times, they'd have published it under exactly the circumstances Dick Whitman and I specified above.

- I have no idea under what circumstances Manning came to Wikileaks, but it seems unlikely to me that the NYT would have directed him there.

 

Azreal, if Manning is indeed the culprit then yes it is treason. He is an active duty U.S. Army soldier who has no business leaking classified documents. If he's guilty, the fucker ought to be executed.

 

That wasn't my question.

 

What Ellsberg did was wrong. He got tried but wasn't convicted thanks to the government's bungling.

 

Why execute Manning if we didn't execute Hanssen or Walker?

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

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

 

What consernation? I asked if you had an opinion on the question you asked.

 

az always has an opinion. His question is always a set up to appear enlightened when does answer.

I propose that we don't answer az's questions anymore unless he provides his answer first.

 

Sure. Why not?