It has produced more Commentators.

No one reports "news" without a slant - not the networks, not magazines, and definitely not bloggers.  If you're looking for actual objective new reporting, then you need a time machine to go back to the days of Edward R. Murrow.

How many times does anyone here go read conservative blogs?  I bet you don't, because a) you wouldn't like what they wrote, and b) even if something they wrote were true, you wouldn't believe it because of the source.  Same goes for conservatives - they wouldn't read a lefty blog and agree with much of anything, even if it was as true as the day is long.

Glenn's point is that the chat logs that Wired has not released could possibly clear up the questions and inconsistencies, shed more light on the entire situation, and allow people to judge for themselves what they want to believe about the entire situation.

From the excerpt you quoted:

What was curious about Greenwald's post was that he didn't challenge any specific facts in Wired's reporting; he just pointed to what he saw as inconsistencies in the story, as well as Lamo's account, and condemned the ex-hacker's actions as "despicable."

How do you know what is a fact and what isn't when there are inconsistencies in the story?  How can you challenge a fact when there are things presented as facts that are inconsistent - which one is the fact, and which one is not?  

He didn't suggest outright that Manning had not actually confessed to Lamo. He didn't try to argue that Manning hadn't broken the law. He didn't say the log excerpts were fabricated. He did, however, complain that Lamo had told him about conversations with Manning that were not in the chat-log excerpts published by Wired, and called on the magazine to release them.

Like Hounshell, I think you are assuming that Glenn's not making wholesale accusations and declarations of guilt or innocence is actually supportive of what Wired has put out there, when in fact, what it means is that Glenn doesn't think he has enough of the information that Wired appears to have in order to reach those kinds of conclusions.  I don't know about you, but I would call that a highly responsible and ethical way to approach the whole thing.  We don't see it often, because most "reporting" these days is shaped to fit the story someone or some organization wants to sell.

Poulsen said he wouldn't be doing so, telling Greenwald: "The remainder is either Manning discussing personal matters that aren't clearly related to his arrest, or apparently sensitive government information that I'm not throwing up without vetting first."

Says Poulsen, still, after six months or more in which those issues could have been resolved in furtherance of the truth, rather than obstruction of it.

Glenn, on the other hand, had this to say, in part:

The bottom line from Hansen and Poulsen is that they still refuse to release any further chat excerpts or, more inexcusably, to comment at all on -- to verify or deny -- Lamo's public statements about what Manning said to him that do not appear in those excerpts.  They thus continue to conceal from the public 75% of the Manning-Lamo chats.  They refuse to say whether Lamo's numerous serious accusations about what Manning told him are actually found anywhere in the chat logs.  Nor will they provide the evidence to resolve the glaring inconsistencies in Lamo's many public tales about the critical issues:  how he came to speak to Manning, what Lamo did to induce these disclosures, and what Manning said about his relationship to WikiLeaks and his own actions.  Every insult Wired spouts about me could be 100% true and none of it changes the core fact:  Wired is hiding the key evidence about what took place here, thus allowing Lamo to spout all sorts of serious claims without any check and thus drive much of the reporting about WikiLeaks.

[snip]

For anyone who wants to defend Wired here, I'd really like to know:  what possible excuse is there for their refusal to do this?  Even if you trust Poulsen -- despite his very close and long relationship to Lamo -- to conceal some parts of the chats on privacy grounds, what justification is there for Wired's refusal to state that either (a) Lamo's claims about what Manning told him are supported by the chat logs (and then publish those portions), or (b) Lamo's claims are not found in the chat logs, thus proving that Lamo is either lying or has an unreliable recollection?  While Adrian Lamo runs around spouting all sorts of serious accusations about what Manning supposedly told him that are not found in Wired's excerpts -- claims which end up in the world's largest news outlets -- and while he issues one contradictory claim after the next about these events, how can anyone claiming to be a journalist not inform the public about whether those stories are true?  For Wired defenders: what justifies that obfuscatory behavior, that refusal to say whether Lamo's claims are true or false based on the chat logs?

Poulsen and Wired published Lamo's claims.  Do they not have any responsibility to back them up, other than to say, essentially, "because we said so?"