John at Power Line points out obvious discrepancies between articles published in The Washington Times and The New York Times about five former FISA judges who testified before a Senate Judiciary Committee.
The Washington Times‘ article said that the five judges testified that the NSA Terrorist Surveillance program was legal.
The New York Times said that the five former FISA judges were skeptical of the program’s legality.
Power Line is working to track down the transcripts of the judges’ testimony to find out which reporter’s article is correct.
Update: John at Power Line now has a link to the transcripts to this hearing and concludes that The Washinton Times’ statement was overstated but still a fair report of the testimony of the five former FISA judges. On the other hand, The New York Times’ article was off base completely. In fact, John writes this of Eric Lichtblau’s reporting:
New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau has a considerable career investment (and, I suspect, an ideological investment as well) in the idea that the NSA program is illegal. It would seem that Lichtblau’s preconceptions and biases prevented him from accurately reporting what happened in the Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday. His suggestion that the main thrust of the judges’ testimony was to “voice skepticism about the president’s constitutional authority” is simply wrong; in fact, I can’t find a single line in more than 100 pages of transcript that supports Lichtblau’s reporting. It’s a sad thing when a once-respected newspaper can’t be counted on for a straight account of a Congressional hearing.
Also see Jay Tea’s piece Recalibrating the NY Times.