MB reader Mark C. makes a great point:

Here’s how The New York Times characterizes a “leak” when the target of the leaker is a Clinton:A copy of the report was obtained by The New York Times from someone sympathetic to the Barrett investigation who wanted his criticism of the Clinton administration to be known. On Wednesday, Mr. Barrett declined to discuss the report, saying he would not talk about it until it was officially made public.Of course, they’d never attribute this motivation to Joe Wilson or those saintly “whistleblowers” who exposed the brownshirts over at NSA…

Not only did we not learn Joseph Wilson’s motivation (attention, book deals) when he anonymously leaked to the NYT’s Nicholas Kristof, we didn’t even get a proper correction when those leaks turned out to be lies. And not once in the NSA-al Qaeda surveillance story did the NYT inform us that one of the its sources was an ex-employee who was fired after the NSA found him to be deranged.

So after repeatedly violating its own policy on the use of anonymous sources, did the NYT suddenly get “born again”? Perhaps the company made its employers join a support group for people suffering from anonymous-information abuse — Anonymous Anonymous.

Here’s another question: How could the NYT reporters on this story know their source’s motivation in such detail? You can imagine the conversation — “I need to speak with a reporter right away.” “May I ask who’s calling?” “Sure. I am someone sympathetic to the Barrett investigation who wants his criticism of the Clinton administration to be known.” — Unless the caller was Richard Mellon Scaife, the NYT probably just imputed those motives to the guy because why else would he be leaking the document, right?