Every news outlet in existence has its own long list of controversies and accusations of being the government's lapdog; e.g. The New York Times has the legacy o

Every news outlet in existence has its own long list of controversies and accusations of being the government's lapdog; e.g. The New York Times has the legacy of Judith Miller [0] tied to its brand for the foreseeable future. And in any case, what does this have to do with the critique of the raid? The previous commenter [1] argued that A police raid for biased reporting is not a proportionate response.. How is ABC's government charter, or its perceived lack of independence, a mitigating explanation? If the government has the "right to run the company as the government sees fit already" – again, an assertion with no official basis – then why was there a police raid in the first place? As opposed to the government, who purportedly runs and operates ABC, spiking the story? And even this is just a tangential and irrelevant line of argument. In the U.S., the attorney general is appointed and directed by the President. When President Nixon initiated the "Saturday Night Massacre" [2], you believe that the public and the press should have remained unconcerned because Nixon is the boss of his attorney generals? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#Career_at_The_New_York_Times https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#Career_at_The_Ne... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20542135 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20542135 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre