NY Times Published The Pentagon Papers, But Can't Be Bothered To Send Reporter To Bradley Manning Trial
from the not-a-big-enough-story? dept
The NY Times, of course, was the newspaper central to the case of the Pentagon Papers. That involved a huge dump of information concerning a Pentagon study highlighting how the Johnson Administration had lied to the public and Congress concerning Vietnam. The papers were leaked to the NYT by Daniel Ellsberg. The Times proceeded to release excerpts of it along with some reporting, and eventually the entire set of documents was released publicly. Ellsberg was charged under the Espionage Act -- though eventually all the charges against him were dismissed, in part due to "gross governmental misconduct." The NYTimes was hit with an injunction against publication, and a legal fight ensued, which the NY Times eventually won. There are, of course, significant similarities with Wikileaks. Again, we're talking about a large amount of classified government documents, highlighting lies to the public by the administration, and which were leaked to Wikileaks by Bradley Manning. The documents were, at first, released in excerpts along with some reporting, and eventually the entire set of documents was released publicly. Manning has been arrested and is awaiting trial.There have been some ongoing hearings, many of which we've covered, but some folks have noticed an oddity. The New York Times did not send a reporter. It merely ran a single AP wire story. Thankfully, the NY Times' own public editor is scolding the paper for its failure here, noting that no matter what you think of Manning or the whole Wikileaks issue:
The testimony is dramatic and the overarching issues are important.The excuse from NYT Washington bureau chief David Leonhardt seems especially weak. Basically, saying there just isn't that much to the story:
The Times should be there.
We’ve covered him and will continue to do so. But as with any other legal case, we won’t cover every single proceeding. In this case, doing so would have involved multiple days of a reporter’s time, for a relatively straightforward story.Apparently, when it's someone else, rather than the NY Times itself... it's just a "relatively straightforward story" not worth a reporter's time.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bradley manning, daniel ellsberg, journalism, pentagon papers, wikileaks
Companies: ny times
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
90% of the media organizations today are owned by one of 5 giant multinational corporations.
50 years ago 90% of the media organizations were owned by 50 different people/corporations.
There's simply much less diversity in the traditional news media nowadays, most of them are largely exactly the same, including the same biases at what stories they report and don't report.
If you want diversity in the news media then read online blogs, or foreign news websites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The New York Times is The Establishment newspaper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The New York Times is The Establishment newspaper.
Big Content spews out the Tales which they hand pick and hand write.And Big Content owns all your TV News so they own it all.
But now people go on the Net and read News not just from NYT but other sources...........even sources from other Nations.
You have to Dig thru the Net and then you find out many things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The New York Times is The Establishment newspaper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The New York Times is The Establishment newspaper.
You know when you feel a certain way or think a certain way about something, but are never able to express it as well as you want, well thats what this is, thanks
Multiple sources of the same story, what is added, what is ommited.....proof of bias.......12 step program for sheep
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The New York Times is The Establishment newspaper.
Big Content spews out the Tales which they hand pick and hand write.And Big Content owns all your TV News so they own it all.
But now people go on the Net and read News not just from NYT but other sources...........even sources from other Nations.
You have to Dig thru the Net and then you find out many things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The New York Times is The Establishment newspaper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously the full quote undermines Masnick's bias, so he only gives you the part that does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Obviously - you are not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The A.P. article recounting the main points of Mr. Manning’s testimony about his conditions of confinement that ran on page A3 of The Times conveyed fundamentally the same material as a staff story would have. And Charlie Savage covered his conditions of confinement, as they were being debated, in two previous articles: http://goo.gl/dvFV0, http://goo.gl/gYTX7.
Again, though, readers can definitely expect more coverage of Mr. Manning in the weeks to come.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Business as usual.
Rather than stop the misconduct, the leaks are plugged. But leaks have a way of reappearing, so then you shoot the messenger and plug the leaks again. Rinse and repeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There will, of course, be those who will strive to correct that shift, but as the Founding Fathers clearly state in the Declaration of Independence:
"accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
However:
when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security
And, in fact, if you really take time to read the whole document, you see that about half of it is really nothing but a very long "laundry list" of abuses and usurpations that have led them to abolish the English governance of them and set up their own.
If you really sit back and look at it, you can start to compile a similar list for our own government over the past few decades. It's just at this stage of the game those abuses are still sufferable enough that most people are unwilling/unmotivated enough at this point to do much about it.
But make no mistake, thousands of years of history have shown that such abuses will continue to escalate until enough people are under enough suffrage to do something about it (at which point despotism/tyranny is generally - but not always - to the point a changing of the guard necessitates some level of violent opposition).
This is, of course, why we are seeing the tactics currently being taken by excessively large corporations and governments to try to gain some measure of control of the internet. The internet allows an ever increasing amount of sharing to the rising levels of abuses, it allows them to be compiled in one place, and it allows fast easy dissemination to an every increasing number of people who may not have the time or ability to discover the increasing nature of those abuses for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Merrian-Webster: suffrage
Dictionary.com: suffrage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Manning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where's TechDirt?
While I see much more original reporting at TechDirt than at comparable blogs, there's still plenty of cutting and pasting from the hard work of others.
Get out there and get to the trial yourself. Then you'll have a basis for criticism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where's TechDirt?
Unless you are at "the trial yourself", you cannot comment on it?
So by this logic, unless you are a direct reporter, can you not comment on people not being direct reporters to this trial?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where's TechDirt?
If Mike's not putting in the hours, paying for a reporter to stay at a local hotel and paying that reporter's salary, pension and health care, Mike has no standing to complain about how the NYT chooses to deploy its resources.
For the last umpteen years Mike has been slagging off the NYT for putting up a paywall and trying to make enough money to support the reporters. How does he expect them to pay for things?
As it is, there are plenty of other important stories too. And the NYT has to cover them as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Where's TechDirt?
That's just nutty.
We all have every right to complain about good and services that aren't up to our expectations. If I get bad food at a restaurant, I don't have to be a chef or know how to run a restaurant to get the right to complain about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Where's TechDirt?
Really? - Who's going to stop me?
You really are delusional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where's TechDirt?
See a blog is about OPINION, and discussion, you don't need to have 'boots on the ground' to have an opinion or discussion.
A news reporting agency such at The New York Times, on the other hand, is supposed to report news NOT opinion (except of course in the editorials). As such it would make sense for them to have a presence. I bet they would be there if it were a big time celebrity.
---
blog [blawg, blog] Show IPA noun, verb, blogged, blog·ging.
noun
1. a Web site containing the writer's or group of writers' own experiences, observations, opinions, etc., and often having images and links to other Web sites.
---
news·pa·per [nooz-pey-per, nyooz-, noos-, nyoos-] Show IPA
noun
1. a publication issued at regular and usually close intervals, especially daily or weekly, and commonly containing news, comment, features, and advertising.
2. a business organization publishing such a publication.
3. a single issue or copy of such a publication.
4. newsprint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where's TechDirt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Where's TechDirt?
Not fucking likely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Where's TechDirt?
Either give us a citation that can't be easily debunked or STFU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Where's TechDirt?
That sure sounds like you want him report on news rather than blog.
However, looking at your latest tangent. It is pretty obvious that the PayWall model doesn't work, and there are very good reasons why. It really boils down to an old law of Supply and Demand.
Prior to the Internet (and especially prior to TV) There was a high demand for news, and relatively speaking a low supply.
Today with the internet, Over the Air TV, Cable TV, Radio... There is a very high supply of news.
Add to this that the internet moves much faster than most newspapers are set up to process news (at most twice a day for print).
Finally, many people are just fed up with all the 'crap' that counts for news today and so demand has lessened.
So when supply was relatively low and demand was relatively high it was easy for newspapers to charge for a paper. This also made sense because they had hard costs such as costs of paper, ink, printing, delivery...
Today things are different. There is an excess supply of news, comparatively a lower demand for news. Add to that the fact that the hard costs for newspapers is going away, when you don't print and deliver a paper, there is very little cost to justify charging your readership.
So, newspapers are signing there own death certificate by putting up paywalls. They need to do at least two things to remain viable.
First, they need to increase readership. Paywalls do not help them achieve that goal. Pawalls limit readership, and encourage potential new readers to go elsewhere. So take down the paywall, and plan on making money in other ways.
Second, they need to provide something of value that people won't find with every click of the mouse. For instance more accurate reporting than other places. More local news.
Third, they need to get demographics on their users. This can be done a number of ways.
If they accomplish one and two above they will increase readership, which will allow them to get more advertisers, if they accomplish 3, they will be able to charge more for the advertising.
Instead, newspapers are choosing to put up a toll bridge, the article quality has fallen dramatically in the last 20 years and their readership has fallen off. So they put up a paywall, which reduces the desire of people to view their articles; which reduces the value to their advertisers; which reduces their income; which reduces there ability to pay staff; which reduces article quality; which reduces readership; which reduces ad revenue; which reduces ability to pay staff...
It is a cycle certain to be repeated until the business can no longer be sustained.
The world has moved on, yet the newspapers (and many others) are desperately trying to hold onto their old worn out, broken business models while trying to stay relevant.
It doesn't work that way, it is always much easier to get to the top than to stay there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free press in the US?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Manning,wikileaks,Ellsberg
The matter is mutch simpler in some aspects, more complex in others. 1, Ellsberg was a civilian, Manning was in the military and subject to a completely different set of rules.
2, Wikileaks endangered the lives of US operatives and agents on other occasions by publishing names and where they were opperating. The actions of wiki had to be stopped and manning has to be made into an example. Were it up to me I would have had him sanctioned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Manning,wikileaks,Ellsberg
Citation needed. I've been following this topic very closely since the very first leak, and not once have I heard confirmation about a single death that can be attributed to the leaks. The leaks mostly didn't contain high level material such as the names of US agents in foreign governments. It was mostly embarrassing stories, such as what Ambassador A thought of Ambassador B wearing that dress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Manning,wikileaks,Ellsberg
There certainly are lots of falsehoods and misrepresentations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Manning,wikileaks,Ellsberg
Is there a spell checker in your little world?
Typo on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NY Times is pro liberal.
The NYT will not publish anything concerning Manning because it has the potential to make a Democrat black look bad which would be bad for liberalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NY Times is pro liberal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NY Times is pro liberal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NY Times is pro liberal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NY Times is pro liberal.
In fact he is a centrist, but don't tell this to the Fox News fanatics because they will blow a gasket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Translation
Waaay to much effort to put a believable spin, and to much risk of our readers showing a difference of opinion for everyone to see
[ link to this | view in chronology ]