“This, by the way, may be one reason that the Administration is showing no visible signs of wanting to prosecute the newspapers: the information published by the papers had apparently been declassified before publication.”

It’s less bad in context. Read the whole post. But it does look as though we have been defending the honor of a complacent cuckold.

The only thing they get from my visit to their site is a bandwidth bill. I haver blocked every ad, every cookie and if I need to log in to read a story, I just take keywords and pop them into Google because some subscriber somewhere has likely blogged the article already. :)

Every time I visit *ANY* major newspaper site, I cost them money. My Adblock settings file is huge.

The only thing I oppose is supporting the Times through online reading. The papers are currently dying on the vine and have been attempting inroads into Internet ventures. Blogs, polls, offers and of course updated content. I actually fear the idea of driving hundreds of readers to support the paper with repetitive clicks. And I can’t say for sure, but hitting ‘close’ on a popup may provide Sales with important cumulative numbers.

Anyway, cancelling is an important statement, a good civic gesture.

The Wall Street Journal would appear to be right in line with the coastal papers in its reporting, for this reason. Glenn Simpson, who handled coverage, is based in Belgium and specializes in financial reporting. It will be interesting to read more on this; but I’m not sure that he is one to copy, reguritate and rush others’ stories to print. In fact, Simpson is up for a Loeb award (the awards dinner coincidentally is tonight in New York). You’ll see from the content of his nominated series, he’s a major player in the publishing of global financial data.

Nominated for a 2006 Gerald Loeb award. http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/x14963.xml

“Taxes and Terrorism” by Glenn R. Simpson, The Wall Street Journal

“As Europe Cuts Corporate Tax, Pressure Rises on U.S. to Follow”
“Arab Bank’s Link to Terrorism Poses Dilemma for U.S. Policy” (Part I)
“Arab Bank’s Link to Terrorism Poses Dilemma for U.S. Policy”(Part II)
“Government Probes Tax Shelters Used to Shield Stock-Option Gains” (Part I)
“Government Probes Tax Shelters Used to Shield Stock-Option Gains” (Part II)
“Irish Subsidiary Lets Microsoft Slash Taxes in U.S. and Europe” (Part I)
“Irish Subsidiary Lets Microsoft Slash Taxes in U.S. and Europe” (Part II)
“ABN Amro to Pay $80 Million Fine Over Iran, Libya” (Part I)
“ABN Amro to Pay $80 Million Fine Over Iran, Libya” (Part II)
“How Top Dutch Bank Plunged Into a World of Shadowy Money” (Part I)
“How Top Dutch Bank Plunged Into a World of Shadowy Money” (Part II)

What have you found?

Like a balancing test?

Does the classification decision take into account public interest in the matter?

“If you had bothered to read the article in question, you’d know there is no evidence that the government did anything wrong.”

I didn’t say “illegal” I said “wrong.” Who are you to tell me what’s “wrong”?

The same person you are to tell the government what is or isn’t “wrong.” They have a duty to follow the law. They do not have a duty to conform to your personal views of what is or isn’t “wrong.” That’s what elections are for.

Now you’re not only taking charge of what’s in the “public interest” (or rather, what isn’t, and therefor must not be reported to Americans), you’ve also monopolized the task of determining what is “right” and “wrong.”

Wrong again. We have elected officials to determine what information is in the public interest to disclose, and what information is NOT in the public interest to disclose. I don’t get to make that determination. Neither do you, and neither does the NY Times.

Guys like you are the reason we need lawyers.

I didn’t say “illegal” I said “wrong.” Who are you to tell me what’s “wrong”?

Now you’re not only taking charge of what’s in the “public interest” (or rather, what isn’t, and therefor must not be reported to Americans), you’ve also monopolized the task of determining what is “right” and “wrong.”