NY Times Goes Tough on Wikileak's PFC Manning's Private Past...

Oh, well. According to this NY Times story about Wikileak PFC Bradley Manning, private lives get another black eye.

You'd think as liberal as the NY Times is, they'd of gone a little softer on Bradley's past.

But, I guess when there's talk of treason involved, even the NY Times is not going softly into the night.

Early Struggles of Soldier Charged in Leak Case
www.nytimes.com...

Its pretty reaching in the conclusions that NY Times make in that article - and I don't feel the information revealed in it is all that valuable.

If it was written by a professional counselor or psychologist who had Manning as a patient for a decent period of time, that would be one thing. This is another.

I still think Manning could be an intelligence asset brought forward by the govt. on fabricated chat logs to try and influence public opinion and coerce WikiLeaks in some way we aren't being told.

It is hard to understand the NY Times motivation in doing this scuzzy article. They seem to want to sensationalize the otherwise not that extraordinary tough times this fellow went through. Why talk about his sexuality or choice in partners except to pander to the worst in readers who still might think those are negatives? Even his skills and intelligence are made out to be some sort of problem.

It could be that the Times is trying to distance itself from the hot-seat considering it was one of the outlets chosen to release the story. Pretty unconscionable in my opinion.

Many great men have suffered for their wanton disregard for authority and this boy is paying the price heavily. Is there anyone who could say with sincerity that the government isn't hiding too many secrets from us? Then why is what he did so bad??

I am heartened that there have been protesters giving visible support to his cause and even calling for his release.

I am on their side, to be sure.

I see the article as a blatant attack on Manning's
character. By exposing Manning in a negative light
then they assume more people will shy away from
considering him a hero. It's all about discrediting
the leaker. I find the article offensive as it just
proves the NYTimes is part of the propaganda
machine for Big Brother.

I'm not saying some of the article is false,
I'm saying it was twisted to suit their agenda.
It's biased reporting.

It's definitely a hostile attack on his character. Manning could have been portrayed sympathetically or neutrally and it's clearly neither. Politically, it's undermining the validity of the leak by associating it with the caricature personality of the article.

It's classic deflection. People keep chatting about what kind of guy leaked the documents. The contents or implications of those leaks become secondary.

My first impression was the media was flogging a dead horse and trying to sell copy by extending the wikileaks story. The tone of the article, a journalistic decision, suggests other motives.

Why does it matter if he was a geek and an outcast?

All that tells me is that he has even more character since he lived in a world that refused to accept or help him in any significant way and still decided to do something for the world at great risk to himself.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
It's definitely a hostile attack on his character. Manning could have been portrayed sympathetically or neutrally and it's clearly neither. Politically, it's undermining the validity of the leak by associating it with the caricature personality of the article.

It's classic deflection. People keep chatting about what kind of guy leaked the documents. The contents or implications of those leaks become secondary.

My first impression was the media was flogging a dead horse and trying to sell copy by extending the wikileaks story. The tone of the article, a journalistic decision, suggests other motives.

Also, this.

Don't let the media get us to focus more on the person who leaked the material than what's in the material.

I doubt all of it has even been read at this point.

reply to post by earl call


Interesting the stances you all take on it...while Fox & Friends about 15 minutes ago called it a 'softball' piece.

I guess they've got to hate on the liberal rag no matter what it says.

Originally posted by sremmos
Why does it matter if he was a geek and an outcast?

All that tells me is that he has even more character since he lived in a world that refused to accept or help him in any significant way and still decided to do something for the world at great risk to himself.

This is a reason I would actually like to meet the guy. He did a completely selfless act and it makes me sad nothing has come out of it yet. (Like was said though, they probably haven't all been read yet.)

And Lamo, why was he such a dog to Manning. What's he brown-nosing for/hoping to get out of dumping Manning in the crap? Sad that he trusted such a dirt-bag.

MM

The term 'Thrown Under the Bus' has become the motto of the modern liberal movement.

If ever counter culture or truth seekers sought out for a hero, this guy would fit the bill.

At least he would have had he not been caught so quickly. I dread to think what the power structure will do from here on in to try and literally destroy him.

I hope he becomes a lightning rod for attention, to galvanize a movement against the military industrial complex.