Email/comment to Ryan Singel

Following is the email response I sent to Wired's Ryan Singel responding to his post, in which I asked him to post my response as an Update (he hasn't). I also left this as a comment on his blog, but he refuses to allow it even to appear:
_________________

You're the one misleading your readers with quotes. Here is the full sentence that I wrote, which you failed to quote -- on purpose in order to mislead (emphasis added):

"After my first article about Wired in June, Singel emailed me to defend Poulsen and contest my objections but wrote: 'I've long been a fan of your work and I'll continue to be'."

I included exactly that which you tried to imply I omitted -- that you "emailed me to defend Poulsen and contest my objections."

You also lied when claiming you didn't say our email exchange was on the record. On June 17, you sent me the first email that started our exchange and wrote: "Feel free to use any or none of this on the record." [Added: The email from which I quoted was your next one, sent the following day, June 18].

You should add this email as an update to your post, as it constitutes (a) my response and (b) my allegation that your post is misleading in two critical respects.

Email to Kevin Poulsen

Email to Kevin Poulsen, 12/25/2010:

From: ggreenwald@salon.com
To: "Kevin Poulsen" (Kevin_Poulsen@wired.com)
Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2010 12:49:48 PM (GMT-0300) Auto-Detected
Subject: From Glenn Greenwald

Hi Kevin - Sorry to bother you on Christmas, but I'm writing for tomorrow about Charlie Savage's NYT article on WikiLeaks and Manning, in which Adrian Lamo claims that (a) Manning "did an actual physical drop-off [of classified documents] when he was back in the United States in January of this year" and that (b) Manning "had been directly communicating with Mr. Assange using an encrypted Internet conferencing service as the soldier was downloading government files."

I realize that you believe the chat excerpts Wired published makes reference to (b), but I have two questions:

(1) Is there anything in the Manning-Lamo chats in which Manning told Lamo what is referenced in (a) -- i.e., that Manning "did an actual physical drop-off [of classified documents] when he was back in the United States in January of this year"? If so, do you intend to publish those excerpts?

(2) Is there anything in the chats beyond what you've published relating to (b) -- i.e., that Manning "had been directly communicating with Mr. Assange using an encrypted Internet conferencing service as the soldier was downloading government files"? If so, do you intend to publish those excerpts? Thanks -

Glenn Greenwald
SALON

Email with Todd Gitlin, cc:d Franklin Foer

GG email to Todd Gitlin, cc:d Franklin Foer


----- Forwarded Message -----
From: ggreenwald@salon.com
To: Todd Gitlin
Cc: Franklin Foer
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2010 10:51:58 AM (GMT-0300) Auto-Detected
Subject: Correction needed

Todd - A key premise of your TNR article about WikiLeaks is factually false. Contrary to your claim -- which has been widely repeated in numerous media venues -- WikiLeaks did not "indiscriminately" dump diplomatic cables.

To date, they have posted to their website only 960 of the roughly 250,000 cables they possess. Virtually every single one of those was first published by one of their partner newspapers: the NYT, the Guardian, Der Spiegel, El Pais, etc. And when WikiLeaks posted those cables to its site, they posted them with the redactions applied by those newspapers.

In other words, the reality is the exact opposite of what you stated in your article ("Wikileaks’s huge data dump, including the names of agents and recent diplomatic cables, is indiscriminate"). That claim is factually false. Here's an AP article detailing how WikiLeaks has followed the lead of media outlets in deciding which cables to publish.

It's obviously fine if you want to condemn WikiLeaks (though your last line is bizarre, given that Ellsberg himself has said Assange is one of his heroes and is doing exactly what Ellsberg did).

But it's not fine to repeat the widespread -- and unquestionably false -- claim that WikiLeaks has indiscriminately dumped diplomatic cables. The media has endlessly repeated the myth that they published 250,000 cables, and you probably got that from them, but it requires a correction.

Glenn Greenwald
SALON


TG to GG

I'm thinking about your points, and will reply more discriminately, as it were, but in the meantime, while we're clearing up falsehoods, I went over to Salon and saw the word "lies" in the headline. You're entitled to say "falsehoods" if, in fact, what I said was false. (I don't agree I wrote falsely, in fact, but will post on that later.) But "lies"? You really think I knowingly wrote something contrary to what I believed? This is false and outrageous. You should take down the headline.


Todd Gitlin


GG to TG

The headline describes "lies **and** propaganda" - it then enumerates multiple items. I didn't say you lied - I said you published "an absolute factual falsehood" and that you and TNR editors were guilty of "failing to undertake the most minimal due diligence (such as, say, checking WikiLeaks' website) before publishing this claim."

I don't know what you was in your mind when you wrote that. I didn't purport to know. And I don't think it matters. What matters is that it needs to be corrected.

This claim has been repeated everywhere, often by people who I do believe were lying. Whether you published it that way or as unintentional false propaganda is something I don't know and didn't claim to know. I think considerable light will be shed on the question by whether there is a real correction promptly forthcoming.