[pphysch]

> the files are in the New York Times office

What a sham. The NYT has openly said many times that it allows the US Government to determine what is "fit to print". How did it come to this?

I strongly believe there was some level of collusion between Greenwald & the USG. How else did he get to have a successful media career in the West, while fellow publisher/journalist Assange rots in prison?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/02/opinion/government-censor...

[antoinebalaine]

Checking in with USG before publishing leaks is actually fairly standard procedure in order to avoid operatives on foreign soil being endangered. Wikileaks did so at everyone of the major releases they did in conjunction with NYT, WSJ, spiegel and Le monde - it's also the reason they stopped collaborating with some of those journals when they found out some of their journalists hadn't followed procedures. And it's also the reason why claims from USG that WL was endangering people's lives abroad were always bogus.

About NYT withholding documents: well, that's just another nail in the coffin of the paper's credibility, along with yet another betrayal of the trust they got from WL...

[ForOldHack]

"...avoid operatives on foreign soil being endangered." See Valarie Plume affair.

[shwaj]

Valarie Plame.

[nerpderp82]

Article here on Miller and Plame, how Plame was outted by Cheney's Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38183380

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby#Involvement_in_t...

[toyg]

Greenwald moved to Brazil, and his partner was subjected to extraordinary detention while travelling. Greenwald was just smarter than Assange at avoiding traps.

[pphysch]

I'm not saying Greenwald was an agent of the USG or always planning to collude, but I think he saw the opportunity and took it, especially after his partner was detained and he saw how serious it was.

[duxup]

>How did it come to this?

Because leaks can have consequences and it's not clear to the NYT exactly what those might be?

It's a tough situation because the government may not be a trusted partner, but I understand asking / trying to avoid collateral damage.

[aleph_minus_one]

> Because leaks can have consequences and it's not clear to the NYT exactly what those might be?

With this, the NYT has decided that they want to be a government propaganda organ instead of a journalistic organ.

[user_7832]

> With this, the NYT has decided that they want to be a government propaganda organ instead of a journalistic organ.

It isn't "with this". In a way (in recent history) it always has been. Case in point, almost any political event. See what the NYT publishes on the Israel-Gaza conflict, in comparison with any middleeast/asian outlet. I'm not saying that this is always on purpose, it's likely a lot of it is human bias - but it doesn't change the fact that journalistic organizations have bias, and you need to read different papers for a complete picture.

[duxup]

I don't think that's what it means.

It's not an all or nothing deal.

[netsharc]

Snowden has said he picked Greenwald/The Guardian over NYT because he knew Greenwald had the journalistic integrity not to squash the story/defer to the government, meanwhile NYT delayed publication of a story to after the 2004 Dubya reelection when requested.

As to Greenwald's media career? He seems to have gone really fringe the last few years, but maybe I'm saying this because I believe the mainstream Russia and Trump 2016 story, and he seems convinced about US mainstream media incompetence/deference, but he just sounds angry all the time...

[dadrian]

Oh, that's easy. It's because Assange committed crimes that Greenwald did not.

[pphysch]

Come on, let's not be naive. If the USG wanted to persecute Greenwald, they would have come up with something.