Tweet
I guess we should be glad The New York Times is checking up on Bradley Manning at all. Between August 9 and December 16 they published exactly zero articles about the man Julian Assange called “the world’s pre-eminent prisoner of conscience.” Meanwhile Bradley has been in the brig at Quantico Marine Corps Base since July. Supporters have become increasingly concerned that he is being mistreated, perhaps to pressure him to testify against Mr. Assange.
The Times piece begins with the obligatory caricature of the Wikileaks founder. Although Assange has about 90% name recognition, it felt nonetheless compelled to remind readers that he is the “flamboyant founder of WikiLeaks, [who] is living on a supporter’s 600-acre estate outside London, where he has negotiated $1.7 million in book deals.”
To find out if the accusations of Bradley being mistreated by the military are true, The Times asked the military. Not surprisingly, a Quantico spokesman said no. The reason Bradley has been on prevention-of-injury restrictions for almost six months, he explained, is that military medical experts and brig guards recommended it. It would have been nice if The Times had asked specifically about the military psychologist who supposedly cleared him months ago. It would also have been nice to know if anyone has ever been on prevention-of-injury watch, with five minute checks, for months at a time. And lastly, could he confirm that Bradley’s one hour of exercise daily consists of walking figure eights in an empty room?
Instead The Times let the Quantico spokesman read from an internal report on Bradley’s treatment: “Pfc. Manning is being treated just like every other detainee in the brig,” the report allegedly says, “His treatment is firm, fair and respectful.” The Times neglected to ask if every other detainee stays on prevention-of-injury restrictions for months and months, but why quibble.
The Times inquired as to why the case is moving so slowly and was offered a variety of explanations: Computer crimes take a long time to investigate. Bradley still needs a mental health evaluation. All parties need to get the necessary security clearances. The defense is the one who asked for the delay. (Bradley’s lawyer says otherwise on his website, which The Times visited, but it chose not to follow up on the conflicting accounts.)
The Times asked if Bradley’s privileges are being restricted to pressure him to testify against Mr. Assange. The Army answered that Bradley has not spoken with civilian investigators or prosecutors. The Times thought it unnecessary to pursue this non-answer.
And so ends The Times investigation of the treatment of Bradley Manning. Its huge readership has been falsely reassured that he is being treated just like anyone else. Nothing will change.
What else is left for the article to say? Oh, yes. The obligatory mention of “the accusations of sexual misconduct [Mr. Assange] faces in Sweden.” Apropos of nothing.
[Ed. note: This post has been re-set to allow new comments. Visit this link for more FDL coverage on Bradley Manning.]
19 Comments
Shame, Scott Shane. What a sad excuse for journalism.
I know. It must be every journalism student’s dream at some point to write for The Times and this is the crap we get.
I didn’t mention that The Times failed to reach any of Bradley Manning’s supporters for comment on this article. This despite David House explicitly asking on Twitter for media to contact him.
I’m glad someone diaried on this. Really deserves front-paging. The NYT lede was dripping with derision toward Assange supposedly leading the high life. Excuse me, but should we then not see comparable derision heaped upon the Sulzbergers, co-publishers and beneficiaries of the Wikileaks revelations, who far more substantially want for no thing? (Assange, credibly, asserts he entered into the book deal reluctantly, to cover legal costs.)
And after searching the top of the story for the word, I finally resorted to text-searching to find the first instance of “solitary,” which only appeared enveloped in a denial.
Abominable.
I didn’t get in to the hair-splitting about “solitary confinement” versus “effectively solitary confinement.” The former is a legal term but Bradley’s situation is identical, except for the occasional detainee in his cell block with whom he can communicate by shouting.
Shane forcefully implies, as do his editors in their choice for the title to his piece and its prominent placement, that it is Assange who is responsible for Manning’s brutal detention, not the US military and their ostensible political overlords, notwithstanding how easy it seems for him to have gotten round his employer’s security protocols in order to reveal evidence of their brutality.
Assange’s WikiLeaks published credible data from an anonymous source, the sort of thing the NYT and the Washington Post does every day – though their sources are more often “administration spokesmen” or their opposite numbers who want to act with impunity rather than to reign in government excess.
The Times and Scott Shane should be ashamed. But that’s an act of contrition they and the American media and political establishment no longer finds useful, and which the American public no longer finds credible.
Dear Moderator,
Put numbers on comments, please, and bring back the routine drafting shortcuts you still use on the main site. Thank you.
This was a hit piece on Assange, made at Bradley Manning’s expense. Thanks very much, New York Times. Your credibility is now soaring among that of lawyers and used car salesmen.
I couldn’t have said it better. There was the not-so-subtle implication that Manning and Assange WERE co-conspirators, and Manning is suffering while Assange gets the glory. WTF.
Second.
I’m kind of disappointed that Glenn Greenwald or David House hasn’t mentioned this yet. It really is journalistic malpractice.
But don’t bother complaining to the Times Public Editor. My next diary is going to be how Arthur Brisbane is the worst Public Editor ever.
I noticed this: “The soldier’s lawyer, David E. Coombs, declined to comment for this article.” It also says David House did not return calls. Has Coombs or House confirmed or denied this elsewhere? And why would they give up an opportunity to comment in the Times? It’s sad when one cannot trust at face-value anymore what appears in the newspaper of record.
Third.
I’m requesting that the format for MyFDL be the same as the format for the main pages.
All this nesting is for the birds.
I can’t answer for Coombs but he has obvious reason to not publicly antagonize the military if he is trying to negotiate better conditions for Bradley.
David House is overseas raising money for Bradley. He probably didn’t bring a lot of stuff with him since he had his laptop seized at the border in the past. But he still should have been reachable. I’m guessing The Times didn’t try very hard.
Regardless there are a bunch of first-hand accounts in the public domain which The Times could have asked the military about, and it chose not to.
I mean, Coombs makes assertions on his website which contradict what the military is saying. If those assertions turned out to be false, Coombs could face severe sanctions, so I tend to believe they are true.
Well, ambitious young journalists who want to write for the NYTimes have to write what the NYTimes wants them to write. It’s not called Pravda on the Hudson for nothing.
The clearest comment I can make about the NYTimes is that I live in NYC and, aside from Krugman, almost never read it. The Times is a propaganda organ.
The good news is that they’re going behind a pay wall (rumored to be $19.99 a month for 20+ articles a month.) Then more people will read The Guardian, which is in many ways a better paper.
I have been researching this, owners of media have been firing journalists to max profits, in turn you very little journalism and its largely replaced by sensationalized entertainment. Like a person with a deep voice saying “boom the news” and anchor people looking like they are serious and deep and basically saying nothing or interviewing some housewife on how she gets her whites so white, cheap. On top of that since after the vietnam war the military got really pissed at everyone and basically took the media and the media is pretty much biting their teeth in fear or retribution with every story that remotely is critical of the mil or government.
So no surprise and the inemptness of billion dollar corperations, their is obviously no spare change for real journalism and you don’t need the rights going out mysteriously everytime you broadcast/advertise.