To: mathprof
Didn't the WSJ also report this story along with the Times? How are they explaining their decision to run the report while slamming the Times?
9 posted on
06/30/2006 11:02:09 AM PDT by
Brytani
(Someone stole my tagline - reward for its return!!!)
To: Brytani
Didn't the WSJ also report this story along with the Times? How are they explaining their decision to run the report while slamming the Times?Yes, that is true. The Editorial in today's WSJ explained their actions (quite well) and also slammed the NYT.
10 posted on
06/30/2006 11:03:56 AM PDT by
mathprof
To: Brytani
"How are they explaining their decision to run the report while slamming the Times?"
Basically, they are saying that Treasury gave them the story after the NYT and LAT refused to spike the story.
11 posted on
06/30/2006 11:04:25 AM PDT by
No Truce With Kings
(The opinions expressed are mine! Mine! MINE! All Mine!)
To: Brytani
How are they explaining their decision to run the report while slamming the Times?They weren't going to run anything until the NYT made it clear that they were going to publish the story. At that point it became moot to withhold it.
12 posted on
06/30/2006 11:05:02 AM PDT by
Bahbah
(Democrat Motto: Why not the worst)
To: Brytani
Didn't the WSJ also report this story along with the Times? How are they explaining their decision to run the report while slamming the Times? The WSJ's news section in a recent survey was found to be the most liberal news paper in the country. Now their editorial secrtion is a whole different ballgame.
17 posted on
06/30/2006 11:10:10 AM PDT by
mware
(Americans in armchairs doing the job of the media.)
To: Brytani
The WSJ and LA Times were going to hold the story....then the NY Times put it on the web.
To: Brytani
Didn't the WSJ also report this story along with the Times? How are they explaining their decision to run the report while slamming the Times?Read the article. Once the government knew for a fact that the Slimes would publish, they declassified and released certain information to the other reporters to deny the Times an exclusive, and because they thought (correctly) that the Times would cast the piece unfairly (falsely implying privacy concerns), and because the Times apparently had a bunch of stuff wrong.
IOW the Journal was publishing NON-LEAKED information they'd received from government officials on June 22, the day before the story broke, and which they'd never been asked not to publish.
71 posted on
06/30/2006 11:52:52 AM PDT by
Stultis
(I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
To: Brytani
What the WSJ published was declassified, and came from authorized sources. That is not the case with what the Times printed.
78 posted on
06/30/2006 11:58:26 AM PDT by
Gumlegs
To: Brytani
Didn't the WSJ also report this story along with the Times? How are they explaining their decision to run the report while slamming the Times? The answer to both of those questions is in the article.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson