Blogs vs. Lamestream Media

The New York Times December 15th exposure of President Bush's 2002 order to the NSA covering eavesdropping on international communications without a prior warrant presents an interesting case for comparing the news value of the blogs vs. the mainstream media, or in this case, vs. the New York Times.

In the original New York times article, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau referred to unidentified "current and formal officials" 60 times (including only 3 direct quotes) in a 3268 word piece to make the case that these officials have concerns about the legality of the President's order.  There were 12 references to identified people, however 9 of these were second hand via the above mentioned unidentified folks.  On the other hand, Risen and Lichtblau only quote 3 identified people-Senator Mikulski and FBI Director Mueller from a Senate hearing, and John Yoo, a former DOJ lawyer, from an internal memo Yoo wrote in the aftermath of 9/11. 

It appears that after spending "a year to conduct additional reporting" Risen and Lichtblau could not find, or didn't want to find, a warm, identifiable body who was qualified to comment on the constitutional, statutory, or case law issues related to the President's order.  It took them until the 3rd to last (of 54) paragraph to bring up the 2002 FISA decision noting the "President's inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrant less foreign intelligence surveillance."

On to the blogs. 

As I wrote here, I was initially dismayed that most of the blogs I read did not contain legal analysis.  I am not a lawyer, and I am not experienced in using the various legal search engines online, so I was looking to the law blogs for help.  In reality, I was just impatient.  I have updated the linked post with several links to discussions of the legal issues surrounding the President's order.  There are a few new discussions today, like Hugh Hewitt's interview with Cass Sunstein.  On the blogs there is no effort by any of these folks to remain in hiding.

In terms of factually determining whether the President acted legally or not, these discussions on the blogs blow away anything I have read in the news.  Also, for a complete view of the actual facts of the situation, the blogs still beat the lamestream media. 

So let me get this straight.  I read the blogs for the facts, along with a reasonable discussion of a critical news story that potentially affects the lives of every American.  And I read the New York Times (actually I don't) for a story that is based on the limited view of unidentified "current and formal officials" and fails to present a balanced legal discussion of whether the President acted legally or not. 

Isn't this the exact opposite of what folks in the lamestream media (think Jonathan Klein) claim?

LATER (December 26, 2005 9:07a ET):  Michael Barone shares my belief in the myopic vision of the New York Times with today's piece on RCP.