From a reader:
Jonah, I had not read the article co-authored by the editors of the NY Times and the LA Times until I saw this quote shown on Meet the Press. “We understand that honorable people may disagree with any of these choices — to publish or not to publish. But making those decisions is the responsibility that falls to editors, a corollary to the great gift of our independence. It is not a responsibility we take lightly. And it is not one we can surrender to the government.” What struck me is the last sentence. It is simply brilliant Sophistry at its finest. They are framing the argument as Freedom of the Press vs. Government imposed censorship. The implication is that, had they not published, they would have been surrendering their 1st Amendment freedoms. This is not a 1st Amendment issue! The issue is Ought We Publish vs Safety of Americans. The Administration requested, they did not force, the NY Times to not publish. This is an important piece of nuance. I also find it quite ironic that the Lefties who cry afoul, “No Blood for Oil!” seem to be perfectly satiated with the concept ”Blood for Newspaper Sales.” (Sorry, “Blood for Circulation” seemed too obvious a pun).