How to editorialize

Kudos to the Powerline boys, who catcha great one. A few weeks ago, the NYTimes James Risen "broke" a story about surveillance during war time--hooda thunk?--that the Manhattan media thinks is grounds for impeachment.

Risen was very proud and noble. He went on NPR and the morning news shows talking about how, in all his years of reporting, he had never seen anyone so pure of heart and patriotic as the people who leaked in efforts to harm the war effort. (And then a week later started flogging his book, which Drudge reports isn't doing too well.)

Well, a full five years after the Clintons are out of the White House, here's how The New Yor Times writes about one of the few times either our government or media has mentioned what a fiasco the Clintons made the American government. The topic is a special counsel report about various criminal investigations of Hank Cisneros, but the importance is how the CLintons abused power in ways that would have embarrassed Nixon. The Times writes:

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.

What a hoot. I guess this leaker isn't pure of heart.

So how does a fair reporter do this? Obviously the Risen model doesn't work: Our friends are angels and our enemeis are devils. I might like it if this Cisneros model were consistently followed (Hindraker includes a parallel structure that runs counter to the Times political views on Bush and those who hate Bush), but I don't think it can work. How do they know the leaker's motivation? Even if they ask, it can't be considered credible. I think you just have to report it, fairly, and leave the motivations to others.