If there's a leak reported at 3rd and Market I would check it out at 3rd and Market. If there's a leak reported to the press, where should they check it out, the Dep't of Agriculture? I don't think the press feels too threatened... if they print a story from an anonymous senior law enforcement official, with no corroborating evidence, and then a sort of "push speculation":
Quote:
|
ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.
|
Parse this paragraph. There are no facts in it. ABC News
"does not know", but connected the events casually so that the reader could draw their own conclusion.
And you did. Your own reading was "ABC News is reporting that the NSA is targeting them..." But that wasn't what they said, but - for some reason - they phrased it to strongly suggest that link.
If they are being investigated, is it legal or not legal? If they had facts on that, would they be reported? Did they contact anyone from the investigating agency to get an official statement on the matter? That would be Good Journalism so when they don't do it, why not?
Quote:
Our reports on the CIA's secret prisons in Romania and Poland were known to have upset CIA officials. The CIA asked for an FBI investigation of leaks of classified information following those reports.
People questioned by the FBI about leaks of intelligence information say the CIA was also disturbed by ABC News reports that revealed the use of CIA predator missiles inside Pakistan.
|
Parse parse parse. They claim the
government is watching what numbers they call. Then they say
CIA is mad at ABC News. Is this related - did they mean to claim that CIA was watching their phone calls? When they were suggesting two paragraphs earlier that it might be
NSA?
No, they just threw out a load of speculation and left the dots for you to connect.