Reactions to the Bradley Manning verdict will be shaped by two misconceptions

Reactions to the Bradley Manning verdict will be shaped by two misconceptions:

• First, that Manning and WikiLeaks "dumped" hundreds of thousands of US diplomatic cables onto the internet. On Nov. 29, 2010, several media outlets reported as much:

ABC: "...making public hundreds of thousands of secret diplomatic cables."

TIME: "...the more than 250,000 diplomatic cables dumped by the website WikiLeaks..."

NYDaily News: "The vast document dump that WikiLeaks unveiled Sunday..."

At that time, however, WikiLeaks had only released 220 diplomatic cables, all carefully reviewed and, where necessary, redacted. The NY Times was one of the few news sources to get this right:

WikiLeaks posted 220 cables, some redacted to protect diplomatic sources...

Yes, you read that right. The documents were redacted to protect diplomatic sources. On Nov. 29, 2010, many media figures were warning us that the life of everyone named in those 250,000 documents was at risk. That mistake is why many people still think of Manning as a traitor.

• Second, that Manning's leaks harmed US interests.

First of all, I don't believe that exposing wrongdoing harms a country's interests any more than the foul taste of medicine harms the sick. The good clearly outweighs the bad. But what actual harm, if any, was there? Here's what U.S. officials had to say, via McClatchy (emphasis added):

American officials in recent days have warned repeatedly that the release of documents by WikiLeaks could put people's lives in danger.

But despite similar warnings ahead of the previous two massive releases of classified U.S. intelligence reports by the website, U.S. officials concede that they have no evidence to date that the documents led to anyone's death.

Of course, it's not too late. Maybe in good time, Manning's leaks will lead to death and destruction. But as of right now, four years later, they haven't. Not one death has been attributed to Manning. If that fact were more widely known, would people still be celebrating his 35-year sentence?

Another round of "Is Glenn Greenwald a real journalist?"

HotAir's Jazz Shaw has begun another round of "Is Glenn Greenwald a real journalist?" in a piece entitled "Defining Glenn Greenwald". The answer to that question will, obviously, determine the fate of the world. There's no other explanation for its constant recurrence.

Shaw's main beef with Greenwald, surprisingly, is not that Greenwald is publishing classified information, but that he is not publishing it all at once. Greenwald, he suggests, is releasing the documents "in dribs and drabs" in order to ingratiate himself with the public, because "Glenn is in the business of promoting Glenn."

Unfortunately, he blasts Greenwald's character with what appears to be a complete fabrication (emphasis added):

"when the White House indicated that they would be pursuing Snowden, Greenwald immediately resorted to threats, indicated that if 'anything happens' to him, he would open the floodgates."

Goodness me! What Greenwald actually said is that Snowden is no longer the sole possessor of the NSA documents, so their publication does not depend upon Snowden's freedom. He never said anything about changing the frequency of publication in reaction to something happening to Snowden.

A lot of misinformation gets around about Greenwald, but today was downright silly. Elsewhere, the Huffington Post's headline blared: "GREENWALD VOWS VENGEANCE: ENGLAND 'WILL BE SORRY'," to which Andrea Peterson of the Washington Post responded with a sobering blog post: "No, Glenn Greenwald didn't 'vow vengeance.' He said he was going to do his job." Cue weary sigh.