NYT sat on a story for a year because it would anger the state, thus meaning they would be denied access to any gov officials or military so they waited for somebody else to do it. US press is largely neutered. As for Italy their MPs were brawling each other yesterday like drunken yabbos
I agree that the press in the US is neutered. They're petrified of appearing adversarial because they know their access will be cut off.
It's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy if they never test the length of their leash-- they could easily make a story out of "we said X and so our access was cut off, this isn't right" but it'd require an ounce of spine.
That's an unfair characterization of NYTimes behavior. They sit on stories when the editors agree that releasing the information would do more harm than good.
> The New York Times has known about the former agent’s C.I.A. ties since late 2007, when a lawyer for the family gave a reporter access to Mr. Levinson’s files and emails. The Times withheld that information to avoid jeopardizing his safety or the efforts to free him. On Thursday, The Associated Press disclosed Mr. Levinson’s role with the intelligence agency. In a statement, the White House said it had urged the wire service not to publish its article “out of concern for Mr. Levinson’s life.” After Thursday’s disclosure, the Levinson family said it had no objection to The Times’s publishing this article.
How can one say the editors did Levinson a favor by holding back the story? Is propagating the idea that Iran or other nation has some innocent civilian when he is really CIA beneficial? Wouldn't that just solidify a potential negative reaction from said government who is apparently rightfully holding a foreign agent who was working on their soil?
In the end your comment seems to support the parent. NYTimes sits on stories at the behest of the US government, only releases it when another agency beats them to the punch.
