Of course, they may do that anyway — discounting whatever they read because it appeared in the “liberal” New York Times — but I think most readers trust us more because they sense that we have done due diligence, not just made a case. I work now in the realm of opinion, but as a news reporter and editor I defined my job not as telling readers what I think, or telling them what they ought to think, but telling them what they needed to know to decide for themselves. “The way it gets picked up is hard for us to control,” Mr. Kahn said. “I don’t think any of us saw this set of beliefs as being worthy of that high level of scrutiny,” he said. The "must read" portion is not about the NSA, but about Times conservo-nerdlinger David Brooks. Two sentences in the middle of a Times article on such a sensitive subject – though they may be off the central point – have the power to sway the discussion or damage a reputation. The recent article, he noted, said that the sources “believed, not that they were told.” The Times provided further context and conditionality, he said, in the next sentence: “If that were the case, they said, China would no longer need or want to have Mr. Snowden remain in Hong Kong.” 
 
 “It’s a couple of steps removed from a strong assertion,” he said. Our favorite exchange begins with Greenwald explaining that his new journalism venture might also hire conservatives, and evolves from there. Never try to out-scarequote Glenn Greenwald. “In lieu of any evidence, The New York Times circulated this obviously significant assertion,” he said, by “citing two anonymous sources saying they ‘believed’ this happened.” 
 
 He continued: “From there, it predictably spread everywhere as truth.” The New Yorker soon repeated it, citing The Times. We absolutely believe that strong, experienced editors are vital to good journalism, and intend to have plenty of those. The fact that David Brooks was accurately insulted in the very newspaper section that publishes his work today fills me with great joy. Because of a concurrent discussion of another, related article, Mr. Kahn does know who one of the two sources is and remains confident of that person’s knowledge and reliability. As for whether our new venture will be ideologically homogenized: the answer is “definitely not.” We welcome and want anyone devoted to true adversarial journalism regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, and have already been speaking with conservatives journalists like that: real conservatives, not the East Coast rendition of “conservatives” such as David Brooks. Dear Glenn, 
 
 Your apparent contempt for David Brooks is revealing. Presumably what disqualifies him from your category of “real conservatives” is that he puts reason over passion and sometimes finds a middle ground. As Lenin despised liberals, as the Tea Party loathes moderate Republicans, you seem to reserve your sharpest scorn for moderation, for compromise. Look at today’s Washington and tell me how that’s working out." Greenwald: "My 'contempt' for David Brooks is grounded in his years of extreme war cheerleading and veneration of an elite political class that has produced little beyond abject failure and corruption. I don’t see anything moderate about him at all. I was just simply pointing out that if you want to pride yourself on hiring conservatives to write for your paper, he is hardly representative of that movement."
– Glenn Greenwald thinks the New York Times is a "nationalistic" source that has printed "quite toxic smears of government critics without any accountability," and you could learn that by reading today's New York Times. Columnist Bill Keller had a very lengthy back-and-forth with Greenwald about the nature of journalism, centering largely around whether reporters should strive to be impartial, or wear their biases on their sleeves. Keller believes in the former, saying it can produce "more substantial and more credible" reporting. "I believe that in most cases it gets you closer to the truth, because it imposes a discipline of testing all assumptions." Greenwald, in contrast, believes it "drains journalism of its passion, vibrancy, vitality, and soul," and that it's less honest, given that all journalists have biases anyway. "A journalist who is petrified of appearing to express any opinions will often steer clear of declarative sentences about what is true, opting instead for a cowardly and unhelpful 'here’s-what-both-sides-say-and-I-won’t-resolve-the-conflicts' formulation." Greenwald also bashes the Times for a number of specific sins: "It isn’t WikiLeaks that prints incredibly incendiary accusations about American whistleblowers without a shred of evidence. And it wasn’t WikiLeaks that allowed the American people to re-elect George Bush while knowing, but concealing, that he was eavesdropping on them." He also complains about the Times' refusal to use the word "torture" when referring to CIA interrogations, and one reporter's undisclosed support for the Iraq War. Keller's reply: "There’s very little you’ve said about the Times in this exchange that hasn’t been said before in the pages of the Times, albeit in less loaded language." Gawker was particularly tickled by an exchange about David Brooks. Greenwald bashed Brooks as an "East Coast rendition" of a conservative. Keller took this as a contempt for moderates. "My contempt for David Brooks is grounded in his years of extreme war cheerleading and veneration of an elite political class," Greenwald replied. "I don't see anything moderate about him." Click for the full exchange.