PressEthic

If you're trying to get an idea of where the Senate Judiciary Committee stands on the issue of wiretapping, you can look to either the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, or the Washington Post. Just don't try to compare all three.

Yesterday the committee passed two measures. The first, drafted by Republican Senator Arlen Specter, recognizes the president's right to seek his own foreign intelligence, and allows for (but doesn't require) a secret court to rule on the NSA program. The second, written by Democratic Senator Dianne Fienstien, is an endorsement of the 1978 law that requires court authorization for wiretapping.

This seems, at least to me, like somwhat of a contradiction. After reading the initial New York Times piece, I decided to look elswhere for some clarification. A look at the Washington Post added nothing to my understanding of what happened. In a (otherwise) comprehensive piece about the Senate session, there is no mention whatsoever of the second bill. Only the Los Angeles Times leads the story with a reference to the "divided" Senate panel.

I don't expect three different papers to write up one story the same way, and I understand why the Washington Post's headline reads, "GOP Leaders Back Bush on Wiretapping, Tribunals" when the Los Angeles Times says, "Senate Panel Sends a Mixed Message on Wiretapping". But none of the three pieces simply doesn't inform the reader adequately. First there is the obvious omission of the Democratically supported plan in the Washington Post piece and its last-minute, end of story mention in the NYT. Beyond that, however, there is a lack of context provided in these stories. It's not clear what the impact of the two competing measures might be, or even what it means when a Senate Committe contradicts itself in the same meeting. Nor is there an explanation for how the two measures are not contradictory. One thing is clear: this is a complicated story. Still, the press should inform, not just confuse.