Today Show Portrays Wiki Leaker as a 'Teased' and 'Harassed' Victim of the Military
Instead of leading with how Army Private First Class Bradley Manning may have jeopardized national security with his document dump to WikiLeaks, NBC's chief Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski, in his profile of Manning on Tuesday's Today show, told viewers he was the "most unlikely suspect, with a youthful smile" and portrayed him as an abused victim of the military. Miklaszewski used the New York Times' Ginger Thompson in his report to tell the tale of young man who apparently decided to avenge the abuse he had taken over the years, dating back to high school, by selling out his country.
Before throwing to soundbites from Thompson, Miklaszewski teased that the New York Times reporter "profiled Manning and found that as a young man he was an outcast who tried desperately to fit in." Thompson then went on to reveal that Manning "was teased all the time in elementary school for being a geek" and was beaten up in high school for "because kids figured out that he was gay." After Miklaszewski added that the abuse continued when he joined the Army, noting "once in the military, he quickly became a target," he aired another clip of Thompson claiming "As a gay man in the military, he was, you know, he was outcast and he was, you know, teased and harassed."
(video after the jump)
Miklaszewski also went on to report that, according to Thompson, Manning had been politicized by the Iraq War, with Thompson underlining: "I think he was driven more than anything by his desire to do something important." At the end of his story Miklaszewski reported that Manning was currently being held under maximum security at Quantico and assured viewers: "He's in good spirits and spends most of his day reading books and following news about this story."
The following is the full Miklaszewski report as it was aired on the November 30 Today show:
MEREDITH VIEIRA: So just who is Army Private First Class Bradley Manning, the man suspected of leaking all of these documents? NBC's chief Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski has that part of the story. Good morning to you Mik.
JIM MIKLASZEWSKI: Good morning, Meredith. Even as a kid, friends describe Bradley Manning as a computer geek who held strong opinions and wasn't afraid to express them. But at first glance, he appears the most unlikely suspect. With a youthful smile looking barely old enough to even be in the military, 23-year-old Army PFC Bradley Manning is at the center of the worldwide WikiLeaks storm. He's in military custody charged with providing WikiLeaks with this classified gun camera video - a U.S. helicopter gunship attack in Baghdad that killed a number of Iraqi civilians. But the more serious charges accuse Manning of leaking tens of thousands of State Department cables. But how is that possible? Military officials tell NBC News that as an intelligence analyst in Baghdad, Manning had allegedly downloaded the files from classified computers onto CDs, while apparently pretending to be listening to Lady Gaga. The charges against Manning claim he then uploaded the material "onto his personal computer" then passed it "to a person not entitled to receive it." But why would he possibly do it? Ginger Thompson, of the New York Times, profiled Manning and found that as a young man he was an outcast who tried desperately to fit in.
GINGER THOMPSON, NEW YORK TIMES: As a young kid, he was teased all the time in elementary school for being a geek. When he was in high school, he got beat up often because kids figured out that he was gay.
MIKLASZEWSKI: His father, a career soldier, reportedly kicked Manning out of their house in Crescent, Oklahoma. Friends say Manning eventually joined the Army to impress his father, but once in the military, he quickly became a target.
THOMPSON: As a gay man in the military, he was, you know, he was outcast and he was, you know, teased and harassed.
MIKLASZEWSKI: Thompson says Manning retreated into the cyber world where he became an accomplished hacker and in the middle of the Iraq War became more and more politically motivated.
THOMPSON: I think he was driven more than anything by his desire to do something important.
MIKLASZEWSKI: Neither Bradley's family or his lawyers are talking. He's being held under maximum security at the Quantico Marine base outside of Washington where military officials say he's in good spirits and spends most of his day reading books and following news about this story. Now the military is preparing to hold a hearing to determine if he's actually mentally competent to stand trial and he could face additional charges. If convicted on any of these charges, he could spend the rest of his life in a military prison, Matt?
MATT LAUER: Alright Mik, thank you very much. Jim Miklaszewski at the Pentagon this morning.
—Geoffrey Dickens is the Senior News Analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here
- Geoffrey Dickens's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
You've GOT to be Kidding
Submitted by DaMama on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 1:09pm.
This man is a terrorist. He is exposing military secrets to the entire world and doesn't give a rip about the consequences to our country, let alone individuals in government. These are peoples LIVES possibly at stake because of this idiots lust for power, attention and control. Manning should be arrested and thrown in prison for the rest of his life.
Geez, I really despise these "journalists" and their namby-pamby, leftist liberal views. They are a detriment to society.
"As a gay man in the military...
Submitted by Red Jeep on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 1:12pm.
...he was, you know, he was outcast and he was, you know, teased and harassed."
You know, you know, then like why do we want gays in the military, you know? Hmmm?
The Question Is...
Submitted by GeneralAl on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 1:17pm.
Why was he harrassed in the military ? More than likely, he came on to one of the guys! After that, he was dead meat!
"Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away"!
Is there any evidence beside Manning's word . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 1:32pm.
. . . that he was actually harassed for being gay?
If I were his defense counsel, the first thing I'd do is establish in the minds of the MSM and the public that Manning is first a victim driven to extremes -- a gay man wrongly persecuted under the Army's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. Instead of being an example of betrayal, he becomes another poster boy for open homosexuality.
Don't be surprised if a story emerges about Manning telling his superiors that he was gay, but those superiors failing to discharge him under the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. In other words, had Manning been properly discharged when he came out of the closet, all this wouldn't have happened -- Manning isn't really to blame.
Oh . . . and . . . it's Bush's fault.
Precisely why deviants can not hold security clearances
Submitted by c5then on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 1:22pm.
Anyone who is capable of being shamed, blackmailed or otherwise forced to do something in order to hide a secret is a security threat. Doesn't matter whether the person is homosexual, a pedophie, a cleptomaniac, serial gambler, etc... This unstable individual decided to commit treason in order to "get back" at people who teased him??!!! This shows the maturity of a high school girl angry at a clique they want to be part of.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Precisely!
Submitted by Newsbubba on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 1:35pm.
You know, I never could figure out how Bubba Clinton got security clearance since he had a LOT of sluts in his closet, not to mention a rape or two, but he did.
I guess the "new norm" is "if you're gaaaaay, you can do anything you want, girl friend, if someone poo poo's on your parade. Ahh! I could just scream, you know!"
Truth is, this little twerp should never have been in uniform, much less Intelligence, where he probably had a crypto clearance. He was a risk from day one, just as the majority of gay enlistees will be in the future.
Not saying that there aren't some gays in the service who do a great job, but the risk will skyrocket when they open up to "You Don't Have To Ask. I'll Tell You Anyway." They will be out to prove some point, and get their panties in a wad every time some straight Marine gets tired of their shiite and beats the snot out of one.
If this little prick wants to prove he's a "MAN" then take his ass to the general population in a military prison. Take anything left to trial.
Typical MSM perspective
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 1:22pm.
Because most of them -- especially the editors -- have never served in or worked alongside the military, they are quick to wrap military personnel in stereotypes perpetuated by novels and Hollywood.
Junior enlisted personnel like PFC Manning are usually portrayed as being to naive or ignorant to really be responsible for their actions. Instead, they are victims of a brutal system that breaks down their resistance.
We saw it with PFC Lyndie England of Abu Ghraib notoriety. This disobedient under-performer was protected by the media -- they found excuses for her malevolent behavior. And I believe that as a result, she got off lighter than she should have.
We're beginning to see it again with Manning, the allegedly gay soldier who had to endure hateful abuse from his fellow soldiers until he perhaps 'overreacted' by releasing hundreds of thousands of classified documents to the entire world.
It's no coincidence that this is likely to be his defense when he finally comes to trial. But before they convict him, his chain of command up through his company commander and possibly the battalion CO will be raked over the coals.
This douchebag is the poster
Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 1:27pm.
This douchebag is the poster child for gays in the U.S. Military. You didn't have to ask, all it took was one look at this loser.
Why is it even possible for an " I didn't have to ask and I could already tell " to have unfettered access to this type of sensitive, but not as sensitive as him, top secret information?
He must be put before a firing squad to show what happens to sissies that put their own feelings before the entire United States of America.
Hopefully they already took his beloved gerbil stinky away.
Barack_Must_Go.....
So according to this, gays in
Submitted by Free Stinker on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 1:25pm.
So according to this, gays in the military are a national security risk. Glad the MSM cleared that issue up for us. The MSM will freak when they realize what they've done with this story./// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Liberals never think two or more steps ahead.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 1:31pm.
That is typical of a childlike mind. Mature body, brain maturity of a child.
Problem is ...
Submitted by Newsbubba on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 1:47pm.
... our definition of a national security risk and their's aren't exactly the same, I suspect.
See, I consider our rat bastard Fascist SOB of a president a national security risk of the worst sort, but the MSM thinks he's Jesus Christ.
This clown is someone that
Submitted by Odin's Underling on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 1:50pm.
This clown is someone that more than likely voted for Obama. He was someone that believed in all the Obama administration was going to do and promised, especially when it came to Obama's promise about more transparency. Looks like he took it too far. Not that this administration cares about the leaks.
Self-respect
Submitted by KC Mulville on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 1:54pm.
"I think he was driven more than anything by his desire to do something important."
No. Raising a family is important. Doing a good job is important.
What they're saying is that he wanted the respect that comes along with doing something famous or heroic. It's the other side of the same coin whereby someone is willing to do something infamous or criminal (like shooting John Lennon or Ronald Reagan) just to get their name in the papers. It's all part of the same problem: they're unable to muster self-respect, so they try to find it some other way.
You can't force other people to feel about you the way you like. If someone else doesn't like you, or respect you, that's their choice (and/or their problem). You can't control other people's reaction to you. The suggestion in this report is that others were mean to him, and they didn't show him the proper respect, and so he was forced to try to impress them. Nonsense. For all we know, the kid's parents may have treated him just fine, but it wasn't enough for him. Maybe not. Who knows what the true dynamics were? (Certainly not a drive-by reporter.)
In another thread the other day, we were talking about the difference between religious values and pop culture values. This is a case in point. Why would any healthy personality want to offer their soul up as grist for the media's mill? Seems to me that self-respect is more a case of staying away from the media rather than being used by them. I keep thinking about American Idol. The show is about how music producers "offer" to control and create some impressionable kid's life, and exploit the kid ... in exchange for fame. And people line up for that deal?
Ginger Thompson wants to know
Submitted by dr-go on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 2:01pm.
why did Manning chose to do this? Why do Muslim terrorists hate us? Why do young people such as Mohamed Mohamud hate America so?
Whilst we search for answers, we need to help all of these poor victims by allowing them to explore their inner selves and aid them in articulating and practicing their obsessive hatred. Peace will only be found when we atone for our infractions and interferences of their psyches.
Please, can we ever see a rational, intelligent human represent the NYT?
boo hoo
Submitted by katiejane on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 2:13pm.
poor little geek picked on by the mean kids. /s
I have a feeling that this
Submitted by Seashell on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 2:24pm.
I have a feeling that this young man didn't quite realize the extent of the damage that he unleashed. No excuse though. He deserves to be punished to the full extent of the law. Wonder if his Dad is impressed?
Uhhh, boo f'ing hoo. Hope he gets "the chair"
Submitted by krendler on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 2:31pm.
Let's sit back and listen to the media's usual laundry list of excuses why it was America's Fault.
And "boyish smile?" Sorry, that smile gave me the willies the first time I saw the pic.
The MBM's 1960's mentality is revealed
Submitted by Mary Louise Turner on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 2:50pm.
This whole idiotic interview on "Today" reveals that most of the MBM (Make Believe Media) is still stuck, or rather entrenched, in a 1960's mentality. Remember, In the MBM's eyes, the criminals are the true victims of crime (due to bigotry, poverty, etc.) Give me a break! Making this latter-day Benedict Arnold the innocent victim is sickening.
The answer to all of these
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 2:58pm.
The answer to all of these problems can be found in the protests and the love ins in the 60's. These are the people that are raising these messed up kids. They are second generation hippies and their parents instill no self-respect, no self-dicipline no self-anything. They told the kid that is was not their fault. There is no right or wrong and there is no such thing as self-responsibility.
Thats why he did it. He has had no moral guidance.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Not a terrorist
Submitted by GW on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 3:04pm.
More like a traitor
so being homo and allegedly teased
Submitted by Calypso Jones on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 3:16pm.
is a good enough reason to betray your countrymen. It is in the eyes of the left.
Yes
Submitted by Seashell on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 3:33pm.
They always seem to make excuses for bad behavior when the person is gay. Now, if someone exhibits bad behavior toward a gay person, there is no excuse for that. They are just pure evil.
Ha!!! I knew the guy was a
Submitted by liberalsarefunny on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 3:50pm.
Ha!!! I knew the guy was a 'mo.....
I don't know anybody care to chime in.......
Submitted by Redrowan2000 on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 5:19pm.
If what this sub-cretin did results in the deaths of either U.S. personnel or friendlies to the U.S. does this qualify him for execution? Does treason during a time of war alone qualify him for the death penalty?
Anybody with the answers to these please post.
"Don't let the bastards grind you down."
Red
Treason
Submitted by HockeyKid on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 7:25am.
regardless of its consequences or the nation's war footing, is punishable by death under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
I have personally fired somewhere north of 300 blank rounds at funerals in honor of our fallen heroes (that's one round per hero, for those not familiar with military funerals). I wouldn't mind firing one live one in recognition of that traitor's actions.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
His sexual preference matters not one whit.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 6:28pm.
He has, if the evidence is substantive, committed treason.
And last I checked, the penalty for treason was death.
--Mike
Even if the allegations are true
Submitted by Joe the Cop on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 7:01pm.
His homosexuality is a non-issue. Both he and his defense (probably taxpayer-funded) may argue that Manning's actions were the result of DADT or being teased. Except-- DADT was in place when he signed up, and he would have known that and about his own sexuality. When you join an organization like that, you're becoming part of something bigger and more important than you*, and your needs are rescinded to those of the group. If you're not ready to do that, then don't join the team. As far as the allegations of teasing, etc? Well, too bad. Put your big boy pants on.
Manning's (alleged) spiteful, childish betrayal of the military and his country compromises the op AND his own cause. Way to go, private. The better response would have been to excel and advance.
* I think that "bigger than you" aspect is another reason the left has such disdain for the military. The very idea flummoxes them. Well, that, and the actual decision making and accountability.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/comment/reply/43475#ixzz16oELZsys
excuses for treason
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 7:08pm.
Are there viable excuses for treason now? People who cried "war criminal" to a sitting president because the intelligence he and half the world had was not proved to be true are now telling me that it is okay to commit treason if you have been picked on.
Mik could be his defense lawyer....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 7:59pm.
at Assnage's rape trial.
Mik: yer honor, my client was picked on as a child.
Boo-friggin'-hoo!
Again with the ignorant psychobabble and implications....
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 9:02pm.
Liberals are overly fond of kicking around terms they heard in Psych(ology) 101 so many years ago. Problem is, they do not know what the terms mean or how they are applied in actual practice.
In no way does any teasing he received as a child mitigate any possible damage he might have done to national security if he is indeed guilty of any charges that may be brought against him. I have testified in too many court cases to ever see this kind of profile used successfully to mitigate serious criminal liability.
R. Lee Ermey for the Prosecution
Submitted by HockeyKid on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 7:28am.
"Maybe you should have considered hikin' yer nancy a$$ out of Nambypambyville, ya JACKwagon!!"
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
This is such crap.
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 8:07am.
How many NBers have tried to make the case for repeal of DADT because good soldiers are being kicked out just because they're gay? Here's a guy -I'll call him "Nancy-boy"- who had supposedly been beaten up in high school for being, well, a Nancy-boy, and then was "targeted" in the military because his Nancy-boyness was evidently pretty obvious. (I'm not condoning the actions of those who either beat him up or targeted him, I'm just restating the Today Show's position.)
And yet, here he remains, still in the military -albeit in the brig- even after he had posted on his Facebook page a number of clues regarding his sexuality. Clues like 'I'm gay' and 'here's a picture of me at a gay pride parade'. Then he claims to have stolen the data by over-writing a Lady Gaga cd! Who worked with this -fella- and didn't know he was gay?
So either the argument that gays are just being tossed out of the service for nothing other than being a known homosexual is wildly overstated, or flaming homosexuals with a public activist agenda and access to millions of documents containing classified intelligence and other information are being exempted from the policy. Which is it?
Don't repeal DADT. Ever.
I Missed It
Submitted by bwl on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:12pm.
Could somebody please point out where anybody said what he did was a good thing? There's a big difference between explaining somebody's motivation to do something and justifying their actions. Have any of you figured that out?Really bwl? Okay, here's 6...
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:26pm.
You're not interested in doing just a little research?
You'll have to be a bit more diligent than that to survive on this site...
Get a Grip
Submitted by bwl on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 3:21pm.
I was talking about the story, not some Facebook page.
Nothing in the story says or implies that he was justified in doing what he did.
Clear enough, bk?
You can always find somebody to support anything if you look around enough.
get a grip?
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 6:44pm.
You implied that no one has indicated that what Manning did was a good thing. In fact, your exact words were: Could somebody please point out where anybody said what he did was a good thing? I provided six links that expressly indicate that some people believe Manning did a good thing.
From [the] some Facebook page:
The CouragetoResist link has this to say:
Truth Out says this in reference to Manning:
BradleyManning.org has his address at the Quantico Brig listed so that supporters can send him a holiday card -isn't that special.
So, maybe bwl, you'll want to temper your derision toward me. You asked a question to no one specific and I provided a clear and decisive answer. Just because you don't like or can't accept that answer, doesn't mean I have clarity issues.
Are You Purposely Being Obtuse?
Submitted by bwl on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 6:16pm.
"You implied that no one has indicated that what Manning did was a good thing. In fact, your exact words were: Could somebody please point out where anybody said what he did was a good thing? " Right, and I was talking about THE STORY REFERRED TO in the article. The article claimed that the TV story was excusing Manning's actions. A number of people who commented on this article made similar comments. Understand now?Well, no, actually
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 12:11am.
But given that it took you to this point to clarify your initial remark, I would say you were the one being obtuse. I certainly wouldn't have reiterated my initial response with quotes from the links if you had made it clear you were talking ONLY about the specific peice mentioned in the post.
Your condescention is excused.
<< But given that it
Submitted by bwl on Fri, 12/24/2010 - 5:00pm.
<< But given that it took you to this point to clarify your initial remark, I would say you were the one being obtuse. >>
I clarified my initial remark back at post #35. Try to pay attention, would you? Given that everybody else on the thread was talking about the story, I made a leap of faith that you would be able to conclude the obvious, even if you did miss post #35.
I guess I was mistaken to trust your intellect.
By the way, you should look up the meaning of "obtuse," as you seem to think it has to do with clarity rather than being unable to understand a simple concept.
Breaking News
Submitted by Redrowan2000 on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 4:09pm.
Attorney General Eric (I Hate America ) Holder has just announced that PFC Bradley Manning will be tried in a civilian court in San Francisco California. Holder has already ruled out the death penalty but he has indicated that he will be prosecuting to the full extent of the law anybody that was mean to Mr. Manning in his entire life. Mr. Holder is also expected to be asking for Captial Punishment in any Hate Crimes against Mr. Manning while serving our country.
Mr. Manning may also qualify for free college education under a new provision of the Dream Act.
"Don't let the bastards grind you down."