nytimes
By DAVID CARR

A disgrascii117ntled loner with access to military secrets comes across docascii117 ments that pascii117ll back the veil on government actions in a lost war and decides for a variety of reasons, some noble and some personal, to share them with the world.

That was Daniel Ellsberg in 1969, and for his efforts, which became the pascii117blication of the Pentagon Papers, he was investigated and indicted, bascii117t eventascii117ally he was hailed as a hero and enshrined in the joascii117rnalistic canon.

Today that role has been taken ascii117p by Pfc. Bradley E. Manning (who now wants to be known as Chelsea) and Edward J. Snowden. Their chances of being widely declared heroes aren&rsqascii117o;t nearly as great: Private Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison last week, and Mr. Snowden, who revealed docascii117 ments showing the extent of sascii117rveillance by the National Secascii117rity Agency, is still hiding in Rascii117ssia beyond the reach of the ascii85nited States government.

Perhaps they got what&rsqascii117o;s coming to them. They knew, or shoascii117ld have known, the risks of revealing information entrascii117sted to them, and decided to proceed. Like almost all whistle-blowers, they are difficascii117lt people with complicated motives.

So, too, are the joascii117rnalists who aid them. It&rsqascii117o;s not sascii117rprising that Jascii117lian Assange, the foascii117nder of WikiLeaks, who brokered the pascii117blishing of Private Manning&rsqascii117o;s docascii117 ments, and Glenn Greenwald, the colascii117mnist for The Gascii117ardian who has led the Snowden revelations, have also come ascii117nder intense criticism.

What is odd is that many pointing the finger are joascii117rnalists. When Mr. Greenwald was on &ldqascii117o;Meet the Press&rdqascii117o; after the first roascii117nd of N.S.A. articles, the host, David Gregory, seemingly switched the show to &ldqascii117o;Meet the Prosecascii117tor.&rdqascii117o; He asked, &ldqascii117o;To the extent that yoascii117 have aided and abetted Snowden, even in his cascii117rrent movements, why shoascii117ldn&rsqascii117o;t yoascii117, Mr. Greenwald, be charged with a crime?&rdqascii117o;

Jeffrey Toobin, who works for both CNN and The New Yorker, called Mr. Snowden &ldqascii117o;a grandiose narcissist who belongs in prison.&rdqascii117o; This week, he called David Miranda, Mr. Greenwald&rsqascii117o;s partner who was detained by British aascii117thorities for nine hoascii117rs ascii117nder antiterror laws, the eqascii117ivalent of a &ldqascii117o;drascii117g mascii117le.&rdqascii117o;

Mr. Assange has also come ascii117nder withering criticism, inclascii117ding in the pages of The New York Times, which accascii117sed him, among other things, of not smelling very nice as we cooperated with WikiLeaks in pascii117blishing reams of articles in Jascii117ly 2010 based on the revelations from Private Manning.

This week, Michael Grascii117nwald, a senior national correspondent at Time, wrote on Twitter: &ldqascii117o;I can&rsqascii117o;t wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes oascii117t Jascii117lian Assange.&rdqascii117o; (He later apologized, perhaps reasoning that salivating over the killing of anyone was in poor taste.)

What have Mr. Assange and Mr. Greenwald done to inspire sascii117ch rancor from other joascii117rnalists? Becaascii117se of the leaks and the stories they generated, we have learned that in the name of tracking terrorists, the N.S.A. has been logging phone calls and e-mails for years, recorded the metadata of correspondence between Americans, and in some instances, dived right into the content of e-mails. The WikiLeaks docascii117 ments revealed that the ascii85nited States tascii117rned a blind eye on the ascii117se of tortascii117re by oascii117r Iraqi allies, and that an airstrike was ordered to cover ascii117p the execascii117tion of civilians. WikiLeaks also pascii117blished a video showing a ascii85nited States Army helicopter opening fire on a groascii117p of civilians, inclascii117ding two Reascii117ters joascii117rnalists.

In the instance of the stories based on the pascii117rloined confidential docascii117 ments in the Manning and Snowden leaks, we learned what oascii117r coascii117ntry has been doing in oascii117r name, whether it is in war zones or in digital realms.

Mr. Toobin agrees that an important debate has been joined, bascii117t says no story, no matter how big, jascii117stifies joascii117rnalists&rsqascii117o; abetting illegal acts, saying, &ldqascii117o;Joascii117rnalists are not above the law.&rdqascii117o;

&ldqascii117o;The Jane Mayers, Sy Hershes and Walter Pincascii117ses have all done sascii117perb work for decades withoascii117t the rampant lawlessness that was behind these stories,&rdqascii117o; he said, adding later, &ldqascii117o;I&rsqascii117o;ve never heard any of those joascii117rnalists endorsing the wholesale theft of thoascii117sands of classified government records.&rdqascii117o;

The larger sense I get from the criticism directed at Mr. Assange and Mr. Greenwald is one of distaste — that they aren&rsqascii117o;t what we think of as real joascii117rnalists. Instead, they represent an emerging Fifth Estate composed of leakers, activists and bloggers who threaten those of ascii117s in traditional media. They are, as one says, not like ascii117s.

&ldqascii117o;By no means was I treated as a hero when I first came forward. I was indicted and spent two years in coascii117rt,&rdqascii117o; Mr. Ellsberg said in an interview. &ldqascii117o;Bascii117t in those days, joascii117rnalists were not tascii117rning on joascii117rnalists. With Snowden in particascii117lar, yoascii117 have a split between trascii117ly independent joascii117rnalists and those who are tools — and I mean that in every sense of the term — of the government. Toobin and Grascii117nwald are doing the work of the government to maintain relationships and access.&rdqascii117o;

It is trascii117e that Mr. Assange and Mr. Greenwald are activists with the kind of clearly defined political agendas that woascii117ld be frowned ascii117pon in a traditional newsroom. Bascii117t they are acting in a more transparent age — they are their own newsrooms in a sense — and their political beliefs haven&rsqascii117o;t preclascii117ded other news organizations from following their leads. (In fact, The Times confirmed on Friday that it woascii117ld work on a series of articles based on the N.S.A. docascii117 ments with The Gascii117ardian.)

Yes, the argascii117mentative Mr. Greenwald and the often obnoxioascii117s Mr. Assange don&rsqascii117o;t jascii117st have opinions, they tend to rascii117b oascii117r mainstream noses in them. Dascii117ring the coascii117rse of their collaboration and coverage of the WikiLeaks investigation, Mr. Assange and Bill Keller, then the execascii117tive editor of The Times, traded some rather memorable barbs. (I ascii117nderstand some of the antagonism: I was at a very proper lascii117nch in the English coascii117ntryside with Mr. Assange and he annoascii117nced to the table that he thoascii117ght the primary reqascii117irements for being a joascii117rnalist at The New York Times were the ability to lie and obfascii117scate. Why thank yoascii117, Mr. Assange. Now coascii117ld yoascii117 pass the salad, please?)

In a phone interview, Mr. Keller sascii117ggested that he &ldqascii117o;let Jascii117lian get ascii117nder my skin a little more than I shoascii117ld have.&rdqascii117o; Bascii117t he said that Mr. Assange shoascii117ld be afforded the protections given to any joascii117rnalist.

Mr. Keller said the relationship with soascii117rces and competitors on coverage was always fraascii117ght with peril, bascii117t technology has created significant disrascii117ption to both the bascii117siness model and the practice of joascii117rnalism.

&ldqascii117o;Stascii117ff that ascii117sed to happen in a sedate place with a kind of Robert&rsqascii117o;s Rascii117les of Order have now tascii117rned into the World Wrestling Federation, with everybody piling into the ring and throwing pascii117nches,&rdqascii117o; he said. &ldqascii117o;There has been a tendency for people ascii117sed to a more decoroascii117s world to bristle at the characters who have acqascii117ired prominence in this new world.&rdqascii117o;

The reflex is ascii117nderstandable, bascii117t by dwelling on who precisely deserves to be called a joascii117rnalist and legally protected as sascii117ch, critics within the press are giving the cascii117rrent administration a jascii117stification for their focascii117s on the ethics of disclosascii117re rather than the morality of government behavior.

&ldqascii117o;I think the people in oascii117r bascii117siness who are sascii117spicioascii117s of Glenn Greenwald and critical of David Miranda are not really thinking this throascii117gh,&rdqascii117o; said Alan Rascii117sbridger, editor in chief of The Gascii117ardian. &ldqascii117o;The governments are conflating joascii117rnalism with terrorism and ascii117sing national secascii117rity to engage in mass sascii117rveillance. The implications jascii117st in terms of how joascii117rnalism is practiced are enormoascii117s.&rdqascii117o;

If the revelations aboascii117t the N.S.A. sascii117rveillance were broken by Time, CNN or The New York Times, execascii117tives there woascii117ld already be bascii117ilding new shelves to hold all the Pascii117litzer Prizes and Peabodies they expected. Same with the 2010 WikiLeaks video of the Apache helicopter attack.

Instead, the joascii117rnalists and organizations who did that work find themselves ascii117nder attack, not jascii117st from a government bent on keeping its secrets, bascii117t from friendly fire by fellow joascii117rnalists. What are we thinking?
-----------

Thanks to editorandpascii117blisher