[Posted by Karl]
More to the point, Wired gets even in a two-part article by EIC Evan Hansen and Senior Editor Kevin Poulsen. The latter writes:
On Monday, Salon.com columnist Glenn Greenwald unleashed a stunning attack on this publication, and me in particular, over our groundbreaking coverage of WikiLeaks and the ongoing prosecution of the man suspected of being the organization’s most important source. Greenwald’s piece is a breathtaking mix of sophistry, hypocrisy and journalistic laziness.
That’s the tip of an iceberg that includes an undisclosed conflict of interest and more than one major factual error. But is it breathtaking? Perhaps the folks at Wired never noticed until now that inaccuracy, sophistry, hypocrisy, free-floating rage and undisclosed conflicts are Greenwald features, not bugs.
Significantly, Hansen and Poulsen include Salon in their critique. Granted, if Salon was serious about maintaining some minimum level of integrity, they wouldn’t have brought Greenwald on board in February 2007, as he had already been exposed as a egomaniacal sock-puppeteer. It is nevertheless a timely reminder of that lack of standards on the part of both Greenwald and Salon.
P.S. — Remember, it’s only conservative media that makes things up. The establishment media told you so.
Update: Greenwald responds, displaying most of the qualities Wired listed in their reply. For example, Wired noted that one of Greenwald’s columns was based on a NYT story that was incorrect on a key point — and obviously so to anyone who bothered to read Wired’s reporting. Greenwald’s latest reply ignores this. Wired noted that Greenwald initially failed to disclose that he was trying to secure an attorney for Bradley Manning. Greenwald’s response is that he eventually disclosed it, when he started trying to raise defense funds for Bradley Manning. Better late than never — and twice as funny, given that one of Greenwald’s big complaints is that Wired’s Poulsen is too close to his source. Regarding a litany of other inaccuracies, Greenwald’s response is essentially that he relied on other reports (as he did with the incorrect NYT story). Yep, tough to see how Wired could call that journalistic laziness. Greenwald’s main effort here appears to have been e-mailing Polusen — and expecting a response — on Christmas. You see, it’s Poulsen’s fault that he did not see the warning in Greenwald’s Twitter feed on Christmas Eve. The one useful point Greenwald makes is that people at Wired took him seriously before their own ox was gored, which was the subtext of my snarky postscript.
Update x2: Foreign Policy’s Blake Hounsell writes, “What still remains a mystery to me is what, exactly, Greenwald thinks is being covered up here.” That earned him a Greenwaldian response via Twitter, in which GG explains he’s just interested in the truth (having just written at length about his ongoing support for Manning and repeated attacks on Wired’s big source).