That doesn't make the edited version, or the name, any less unconscionable for an organization that wanted to find the truth. To quote Stephen Colbert, it was "emotional manipulation". If they wanted to address a point they should have put out the 39 minute version as is or release to to a news organization. Instead they decided to selectively highlight things, give it an inflammatory name and try to drum up some donations from it. That makes it suspect in my eyes and hopefully the eyes of reasonable people everywhere.

Doesn't mean that I think what happened was right or than I'm trying to defend those soldiers (we can have that argument elsewhere), but that as a reasonable person the editing and name should raise a giant red flag that makes me ask further questions.

I feel the same about this situation. The dramatic talk ("they might render me") and the fact that we're looking at this in a very narrow, uninformed context means we should question everything, including his credibility.

> they should have put out the 39 minute version as is

As the previous commenter said, they did.

Wikileaks' stated journalistic method has always been to provide editorialized/pre-digested material along with complete unedited sources.

>Wikileaks' stated journalistic method has always been to provide editorialized/pre-digested material along with complete unedited sources.

That's not a "journalistic method". I don't know that I have a name for it, but it's not journalism. I said "put out the 39 minute version as is". If I wasn't clear, that means there should have been no need for an editorialized version at all.

Journalists don't expect that most people are willing to watch several 40 minute long pieces of unedited material in the evening news. That's why you will usually see editing. It is great that Wikileaks also released the unedited material for those that are interested.