THE New York Times's explanation of its decision to report, after what it said was a one-year delay, that the National Security Agency is eavesdropping domestically without court-approved warrants was woefully inadequate. And I have had unusual difficulty getting a better explanation for readers, despite the paper's repeated pledges of greater transparency. For the first time since I became public editor, the executive editor and the publisher have declined to respond to my requests for information about news-related decision-making.
Read the rest of the story HERE:
The time limit for entering new comments on this Quicklink has expired.
This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give
you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.