Ainsi, selon sa direction, The New York Times ne ferait pas partie de "la presse mondiale"? Ca, c'est du "pampers prémium++", vraiment. Par contre, quand la direction du Times déclare que "On n'a pas eu accès aux documents, ce qui est un très gros problème", cela mérite, de notre point de vue, d'être médité.
Le Times, porte-parole de la CIA, n'aurait pas eu accès aux documents alors que des centaines de journalistes dans plus de 70 pays auraient travaillé sur ces documents depuis des mois? Nous estimons que cela est impossible et alors de deux choses l'une: soit ces documents n'existent pas, soit le Times ment et s'il ment, c'est à dire s'il a eu accès aux documents, pourquoi ne fait-il pas comme la plupart des autres medias de "la presse mondiale" et reste-t-il à l'écart de cette affaire?
Pour aller au bout de notre analyse, nous soupçonnons que cette situation reflète l'antagonisme (c'est à dire la guerre) entre la CIA et le Pentagone.
Perfectly Reasonable Question: Why No Big Splash for ‘Panama Papers’?
Times, le 5 Avril 2016
Titre et inter-titres E Gaillot pour €calypse News, le 5 Avril 2016
The “Panama Papers” are being called the largest ever leak of secret data, and articles about the offshore bank accounts of bigwigs worldwide — developed by a global consortium of journalists — began appearing Sunday afternoon. They burst into the Sunday afternoon news lull, getting huge play in media outlets around the world and in the United States.
By Monday, I had heard from many Times readers who wanted to know why The Times didn’t seem to be giving the news a big ride. The Times posted a wire-service article on Sunday afternoon. It wasn’t until 9:15 p.m. that a staff-produced piece of moderate length went onto the website. It was not given prominent display; in Monday’s paper, the story did not make the front page. It ran at the top of Page A3.
Despite that, readers clearly were extremely interested. (And for good reason. Esquire’s Charles Pierce wrote Monday that the revelations raise the distinct possibility “that every political system in the world — even the nakedly authoritarian ones — is hopelessly rigged, and that the marvelous new world of the miraculous global economy is an even bigger thieves’ paradise than you, me, or even Jamie Dimon thought it was.”)
Quietly displayed and delayed as it was, the story nevertheless was among The Times’s 10 most widely read articles on Monday morning.
Blake Burton of Tulsa was one reader who wanted an explanation. He wrote:
Is there a reason that the New York Times is underplaying the Panama Papers? They are front-page news, usually as the top story, in both mainstream outlets (CNN, NBC, The Guardian, The Times of London, etc.) and further afield, from Argentina (Clarion) to Zimbabwe (The Mail). Even “banking friendly” outlets like the FT and Bloomberg are giving them top billing. As of this writing (noon eastern on the second day of public availability), the word “Panama” does not appear on your homepage, and the only article avoided the front page of my paper edition this morning (A3). Is there a good reason why?
I asked Matt Purdy, a deputy executive editor, to respond. He told me by phone that The Times is very interested in the data leak, and the articles produced from it. But he said Times editors believe that they owe it to their readers to do their own evaluation of the material. And that, he said, is happening now.
Because The Times was not a part of the global consortium and was not aware that the story was coming, it needed some time to get its own story going. “We didn’t know these documents were out there and being worked on,” he said.
“We didn’t have access to the documents, and that is a very big issue,” he said. But Mr. Purdy said he hoped, and had good reason to believe, that that would change soon.
“This is a great trove of documents — certainly interesting and valuable — and it takes a while to know what to make of them,” he said. Failing that on Sunday night, the story didn’t seem appropriate for the front page, he said. (In addition, I’ll note, The Times was publishing a major enterprise piece about corruption in Brazil. Very well done in its own right, it was given the most prominent space on Monday’s front page.)
Mr. Purdy was quick to say that the consortium journalists “did a really good job” with the Panama Papers reporting.
“We tried to put something in place, to do our best without the documents,” he told me.
Why did it take so long to post a staff-written story? Many Times readers told me that as soon as they heard about the story, they went to the Times website to find such a story and were disappointed not to find one. The staff article was published at 9:15 p.m.
“This was not a case of a single-fact story that we could simply confirm and go with,” Mr. Purdy said. “This was a case where hundreds of reporters had been working on it for a long time.”
He pointed out that the article that was published added some information from The Times’s own previous digging on Russian financial holdings.
“We have a serious obligation to make sense of this as best we can, evaluate it and put it in context,” he said. He said reporters and editors were working on a follow-up article on Monday and would be doing more soon, “integrating it with our own reporting” on offshore accounts and related topics. (Shortly after this post went up, a new Times article on repercussions in Iceland was published.)
In this occasional series of Perfectly Reasonable Questions, I ask a Times editor to respond to a reader’s question, and I present the question and answer, usually without comment. Feel free to submit questions to email@example.com. (As always, I reserve the right to determine what is perfectly reasonable.)