4 ms·

This contrasts quite a bit with: http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/why-no-big-splash-for-panama-papers/ http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/20

This contrasts quite a bit with: http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/why-no-big-splash-for-panama-papers/ http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/why-no-big-... 'Because The Times was not a part of the global consortium and was not aware that the story was coming, it needed some time to get its own story going. “We didn’t know these documents were out there and being worked on,” he said. “We didn’t have access to the documents, and that is a very big issue,” he said. But Mr. Purdy said he hoped, and had good reason to believe, that that would change soon.'

cmsmith 11y ago
Your link goes on to say, in a paraphrased quote corroborated by the NYT: "we approached them in the past for a similar story, and they didn't want to be involved in such a large collaborative effort, so we didn't bother this time around" The NYT can't turn up their noses when they were invited to my birthday party last year, then complain when they don't get invited to my much cooler party this year.
tremon 11y ago
I don't read it as a contrast. The ICIJ is apparently saying "we didn't gave them access, because they had no interest in cooperating with us". So NYT's statement that they didn't have access, seems accurate. As for "we didn't know": it's unclear on which level the ICIJ communicates with newspapers, but it makes sense that happens on a managerial level, not editorial. So it's not that surprising to me that a NYT editor would be unaware of the documents. The more interesting part to me, is why the editor expects the situation to "change soon". Has management reversed course now that they see how big the story is getting, or are the reporters/editors up in arms because they were blindsided by management?