WSJ – Are You the New New York Times?
With a hat tip to Patterico’s Pontifications, I bring you the difference between the reporting the NY Times and LA Times did, and the Wall Street Journal’s reporting:
As to question #1 [Regarding why we criticize the "two Times-ers" and not the Wall Street Journal], the New York Times story reported:
Nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives discussed aspects of the Swift operation with The New York Times on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified. Some of those officials expressed reservations about the program, saying that what they viewed as an urgent, temporary measure had become permanent nearly five years later without specific Congressional approval or formal authorization.
Similarly, the Los Angeles Times article reported:
More than a dozen current and former U.S. officials discussed the program with The Times on condition of anonymity, citing its sensitive nature.
The Wall Street Journal article, which I can’t link because it is behind a paid subscription wall, contains no similar passage. John Snow and Stuart Levey are quoted by name. The words “anonymous” and “anonymity” do not appear in the article. The article contains no clear indication that any information was provided to the paper by anonymous officials concerned about the classified nature of the program. Instead, the article says:
U.S. officials agreed to discuss the program after concluding that knowledge of its existence was emerging and public disclosure was inevitable.
While I don’t agree that charges should be filed against the NY Times and LA Times, Patterico does have some other salient points on the controversy. Good reading, and highly recommended. Here’s that LINK! again.
