Data-Mining Three

This is just a quick post to register two disagreements with Glenn Greenwald’s post claiming the NYT’s data-mining story is a shiny object. First, Glenn claims that the stories were floated by "anonymous sources seeking to protect Alberto Gonzales" and "anonymous pro-Bush sources." But then he goes on to point out that the NYT story (unlike the WaPo story) includes a detail–which I pointed out in my post on the story–that doesn’t help Gonzales.

A half-dozen officials and former officials interviewed for thisarticle would speak only on the condition of anonymity, in part becauseunauthorized disclosures about the classified program are already thesubject of a criminal investigation. Some of the officials said the 2004 dispute involved other issues in addition to the data mining, but would not provide details. [Glenn’s emphasis]

In other words, the story relies on six sources, but at least two of those sources are actually pointing out the same thing that the blogosphere is pointing out: the problem was data-mining, plus other issues. At least two of the sources for the story are not "pro-Bush sources … seeking to protect Alberto Gonzales."

Now, I’m not going to bet any money that the NYT, if two of its sources stated, "well, yeah, data-mining was a problem, but the real problem …" would faithfully render that point of emphasis. But at least as reported, these at-least-two sources who are not helping Bush still confirm that data-mining is part of the problem.