Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Undertoad
Parse this paragraph. There are no facts in it. ABC News "does not know", but connected the events casually so that the reader could draw their own conclusion.
And you did. Your own reading was "ABC News is reporting that the NSA is targeting them..." But that wasn't what they said, but - for some reason - they phrased it to strongly suggest that link.
|
Fair enough. I assumed "NSA" when they said "government." Maybe it was NSA. Maybe not. It's certainly in the NSA's field of expertise. I think it's a little irrelevant what part of the executive branch is doing this.
Here's what they said: "A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources."
I admit it's an article that's pretty sparse on facts, and is poorly written, but you are wrong when you say there are no facts in it. There is one new fact: the government is logging the calls of ABC News. Isn't one fact enough to be reported?