Sunday, January 1, 2006

Catching up with Times transparency questions As I try started trying to catch up with the "What did The New York Times know, and how did it know it?" debate about last month's domestic wiretapping stories,  I noticed that some of the discussion used links to the first story in the controversy, but the links had "expired" into the Times Select $4 archive. However, the Times still provides a special, more permanent, set of links if you subscribe to its (still free) RSS headline feeds. So here are a few still-working links to the earlier stories that started it all: Bush Secretly Lifted Some Limits on Spying in U.S. After 9/11, Officials Say, By James Risen and Eric Lichtblau,  Dec. 15, 2005. Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts, By James Risen and Eric Lichtblau,  Dec. 16, 2005. FBI Watched Activist Groups, New Files Show, By Eric Lichtblau,  Dec. 19, 2005. Spy AgencyMined Vast Data Trove, By James Risen and Eric Lichtblau,  Dec. 24, 2005. Congress Never Authorized Spying Effort, Saschle Says, By Richard W. Stevenson, Dec. 24, 2005. Terror Threats and Responses --  Times page of links to related stories, Dec. 19-Jan. 1. And here's some of the debate: Behind the Eavesdropping Story, a Loud Silence, By Byron Calame, Times Public Editor, Jan. 1, 2006. (The Times ombudsman calls editors' explanations for running the story "woefully inadequate.") NYU professor & blogger Jay Rosen comments at PressThink. UT professor & blogger Glenn Reynolds comments at Instapundit. Prying Open The Times: Once again, the paper's lack of transparency has put it on shaky ground with readers, Salon.com Some Veteran Journalists Say 'Times' And 'Post' Should Have Disclosed Meeting with Bush, Editor & Publisher. 8:16:09 PM    comment []

© Copyright 2008 Bob Stepno. Last update: 7/19/08; 1:11:23 PM.