And now: Her blog post has appeared. She sides mainly with Rosenthal that the edit was simply to make clear what they thought was communicated in the original, and that they were not pressured to make change. She argues, however, that there should have been some sort of note with the editorial explaining or noting change.
Separately, on Twitter, she calls "blogger" headline for paper's profile of Glenn Greenwald rather "dismissive."
Earlier: Responding to last night's NSA phone/collection scoop, the NYT published this afternoon an editorial blasting the Obama administration in no uncertain terms. And that was before tonight's PRISM shocker. What next? Here's what the paper said already:
The administration has now lost all credibility. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it. That is one reason we have long argued that the Patriot Act, enacted in the heat of fear after the 9/11 attacks by members of Congress who mostly had not even read it, was reckless in its assignment of unnecessary and overbroad surveillance powers.Ponder that first sentence awhile. Because the Times has now changed it! After it was posted for awhile, suddenly the words "on this issue" were added to the end, changing it quite a bit. Wonder how that happened.
Support indie, ad-free blogging, consider buying one of my books (see right rail), such as new one on Bradley Manning.