> Peter maas' arguments seemed quite reasonable Reasonable, yes. But sufficient to warrant the sweeping changes for which he asks? His best (and, to my readi

> Peter maas' arguments seemed quite reasonable Reasonable, yes. But sufficient to warrant the sweeping changes for which he asks? His best (and, to my reading, only very solid) point is that Greenwald's article didn't make plain that the full archive is apparently only possessed by two media outlets, who have (in an act of their own tendency to act against the public interest, to be sure) not yet provided it elsewhere. His assertion that the other media who have juggled these questions have done so with dispassion and exhaustion ("doesn’t explore how major news organizations have done significant stories, and those stories, such as the Journal’s, have not found anything of significance. The Times has also reported on the China deal and found the claims wanting. There are other pieces I can point to...") is a view with glasses so rose-colored as to be a political fiction in 2020 America. Moreover, Greenwald's response is substantially more sophisticated and convincing.