22 ms·
> note the lack of front-page coverage of this story in the New York Times NYT front page on June 20, 22, 24, 25, 26 -- five out of the past 7 days. Plus a fro
by chaz 13y ago
> note the lack of front-page coverage of this story in the New York Times
NYT front page on June 20, 22, 24, 25, 26 -- five out of the past 7 days. Plus a front page mention on June 23. I know you don't mean your comment literally, but I think there's been a lot of coverage. There's some criticism that the stories of late tend to focus more on Snowden, but his part of the story is the only thing that's had material developments in the past week.
http://www.nytimes.com/images/2013/06/26/nytfrontpage/scan.pdf http://www.nytimes.com/images/2013/06/26/nytfrontpage/scan.p... (et al)
- trevelyan 13y agoThanks for the check. I was actually looking at the online version, and checking the prominent stories. I agree that the where-is-Snowden story is getting some coverage, but even there the selection and tone of the materials support the administration. Does the lack of new information from the US government mean that there are no new "material developments" in the story? Considering the damaging revelations in these leaks (misleading congressional testimony? private contractors with access to dragnet surveillance systems?), it is not plausible to claim there is no investigative journalism to do. That it has taken two outsiders to write a piece sensibly critical of the administration and unconstitutionality of data-vacuuming is utterly damning.