Friday, November 04, 2005

Questionable Reporting?

Gal Beckerman, writing at , wonders if the Washington Post softened the reports on the "black site" interrogation centers:
To Kornbluh, it's moot that the Financial Times came along and filled in the holes the Post left in its account. We're not so sure. The editors of the Post have been around the block a few times; they must have known it was inevitable that this information would come out. From outside looking in, it appears their motive was not to keep the information secret, but rather to avoid being the first to expose the location of the "black sites."

What we do know is that the Post is trying to have it both ways: Getting credit for breaking the story, without breaking the specific details that might have caused it grief from the CIA.
Somebody has got to keep tabs on the media.


As long as I am merely linking to points made by others, without adding much myself, here's a link to a Julie Saltman post that links to an Atrios post that links to a NYT article that refutes part of the common perception about judicial activism.