Re: Press Release for Project PM/Anonymous rally in NYC

I would be a shocked if out of the 100+ participants indicating interest in Project PM Todd is/was the only one with concerns. In fact, it's possible many may be not so much opposed, but rather not quite ready to have their name associated.

I myself have raised concerns with Barrett. I'm not saying I'm pro or anti as I'm certainly open to debating and reserve the right to change my mind at any time.

While I fully understand the overlap between the two and appreciate this as a marketing tool, it is my hope a compromise can be reached rather than alienate those who aren't comfortable.

On Jan 13, 2011 6:09 PM, "Barrett Brown" <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

Todd-

Briefly, I would object to your characterization of myself and others involved having decided to support Wikileaks despite an "absence of serious discussion" of these issues. I, for one, have been covering Wikileaks since April of last year, well before almost any other media or individuals have heard of it. I have also been criticizing the organization for almost as long when warranted; just today I wrote that Wikileaks will lose credibility unless it gets rid of its Russian representative, who is an obvious anti-Semite, among other things. More specifically, I would object on the grounds that we have indeed been having serious discussions about Wikileaks for quite a while now in our weekly meetings and our various other conversations. Just last night, for instance, I spoke to Michael Hastings about the issue for quite a while, and I've spoken to Barry Eisler, a former CIA Directorate of Operations chap, a number of times. Both of these individuals are very strong backers of Project PM and both support what Wikileaks is doing in general (and as they are cc'd on this, they can add their thoughts if they'd like). Meanwhile, I have not gotten any objections other than yours from anyone associated with PM. This is not to say that you are wrong, of course, but rather that the organization as a whole tends to support Wikileaks, as do I.

Regarding the hypotheticals you have put forward, I would begin by noting that this is obviously not the first time I have heard or considered such objections since I have been debating the issue quite actively lately. The quick answer to them is that Wikileaks has actively worked with media outlets such as The Guardian (for which I'm now writing in part for that reason) and the New York Times in order to ensure that anything which is a legitimate secret is redacted. That process is not perfect, but neither is journalism, a discipline which often finds itself trying to find a balance between its role as a watchdog of governments and a responsible industry that is mindful of legitimate national security concerns. I prefer what people like Hastings and organizations like Wikileaks do over what it is that the media as a whole has been doing over the past decade or so, during which it played a large part in allowing two wars to launch and fail at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and untold damage to the nation's credibility, economy, and military. As for your questions, then, I suppose you could ask similar ones in the context of such things as the Pentagon Papers.

Obviously, if you are uncomfortable with Project PM's advocacy of Wikileaks and don't want to be associated with us any longer, we will respect that. I would prefer to change your mind, although I imagine - even if you think otherwise of me - that you have put a great deal of thought into your position.

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Todd Essig <tessig@me.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, Todd-
>
> Thanks for yo...

Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302