Glenn Greenwald: N.Y. Times, Weekly Standard join in a falsehood, RE: WikiLeaks

[babylonsister]

Glenn Greenwald
N.Y. Times, Weekly Standard join in a falsehood
By Glenn Greenwald

(updated below)

I just have to put this in a separate post from my two prior ones on the WikiLeaks video because it reveals how blatant falsehoods become lodged in our political discourse. In reporting today on the Iraq video, The New York Times' Elisabeth Bumiller strongly implies that WikiLeaks failed to release the full video and instead selectively edited it:

Reuters had long pressed for the release of the video, which consists of 38 minutes of black-and-white aerial video and conversations between pilots in two Apache helicopters as they open fire on people on a street in Baghdad. . . . At a news conference at the National Press Club, WikiLeaks said it had acquired the video from whistle-blowers in the military and viewed it after breaking the encryption code. WikiLeaks edited the video to 17 minutes.

That led The Weekly Standard's Bill Roggio to scream: "Wikileaks Edits out 21 Minutes of Baghdad Strike Video." He then accusatorily adds:

A New York Times article confirms that the tape has indeed been cut. There are 21 additional minutes of tape: . . .

So why hasn't Wikileaks shown the whole tape? Wikileaks prides itself on releasing full classified documents, so it is curious that it decided to show only a selective portion of this tape.

The U.S. military maintains that there was a unit nearby that was under fire. In fact, the AR 15-6 (the investigation into the incident) said that a U.S. unit was under fire "approximately one city block away" before the Apaches began observing the Iraqi fighters gathering. Wikileaks should release the tape in full, and not just selective portions, and put this controversy to rest.

The only problem with this? From the very beginning, WikiLeaks released the full, 38-minute, unedited version of that incident -- and did so right on the site they created for release of the edited video. In fact, the first video is marked "Short version," and the second video -- posted directly under it -- is marked "Full version," and just for those who still didn't pick up on the meaning, they explained:

WikiLeaks has released both the original 38 minutes video and a shorter version with an initial analysis. Subtitles have been added to both versions from the radio transmissions.

This is Bumiller's fault for misleadingly suggesting that WikiLeaks failed to release the full video. I know she's been notified by at least one NYT reader of her misleading sentences but has thus far failed to respond. Establishment media outlets can't stand that WikiLeaks is breaking major stories and are trying -- consciously or otherwise -- to imply that they're not as reliable as Real Media Outlets (hence, the "WikiLeaks edited the video to 17 minutes" without indicating that they released the full video). But this is exactly how clear falsehoods are manufactured and then spread.

more...

http://www.salon.com/news/media_criticism/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/04/06/myths

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. It's worse than that Glenn!

The fact is that Bumiller was probably "tasked" with the assignment of planting the first seed about the "edited" video and Roggio's assignment was to start incessantly bleating the phrase about the video being edited implying WikiLeaks is dishonest. Soon Roggio will be joined by the legion of right-wing hate mongers on TV and radio and other paid Pentagon & CIA operatives in the media. They know that they simply need to repeat the lie a few hundred times and it will become truth for millions of Americans.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

2. There will be only one huge problem for them. The full video has over 200,000

views on youtube. There are other ones posted of the full video on youtube too that were put up by independent youtube users.

[chill_wind]

3. Would be very gratifying to see both publications FORCED

by legions of readers/commenters to issue retractions of their claims.

[chill_wind]

4. So it seems, she's scrubbed it, rather than issue a correction.

Nice, lady!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8100590