I like how the guy who editorializes with terms like "Collateral Murder" and carefully edited video considers himself doing "empirical journalism."
'Carefully edited' does not appear to be an accurate description.
I think the former is good in a TL;DR sort of way as long as the full material is made available for scrutiny by the public as well.
The number of times I have seen people either flat out lie and claim that the 39minute video does not exist, or lie by omission by never mentioning the release of the 39minute version when criticizing wikileaks for releasing an edited video leads me to believe the answer to your question is "Yes."
These people are already grasping for complaints, playing fast and loose with reality to do it. No matter how wikileaks released that video, there would always be a portion of the population with an interest in discrediting it.
You people keep on clinging to the idea that the additional footage somehow dramatically changes the narrative. Maybe in your mind it really does, but most people who have actually watched both would likely disagree.
Releasing source material, in support of edited content, seems a reasonable way to do 'empirical journalism'.
I have not seen a 9minute edited video - could you link to it please? The wikipedia page mentions the 17minute edited video - as is on the 'collateral murder' website. I have watched it twice, and it seems consistent with the 39minute one. i.e. it has not been edited to grossly misrepresent the evidence in the full 39minute version.
"Sir, how many times did you beat your wife"
but in the other room he said "Sir, how many times did you beat your wife at chess?"
So... that makes it alright? No, it doesn't.
That's what's so intriguing about it. If I forget about all the awkwardness of WikiLeaks, I'd be so excited about this brilliant guy who's going to change the way we consume current events. But...