Tom,

If you can stop hyperventilating for a moment, Bowser's comments are, IMHO, entirely independent of the factuality, or even the content of the NYT article. They relate to your judgemental comment that an audience needs to be "fed" the "right"* information to reach the "right"* decision.

I think he had a point in that you had suggested that 'some freedoms were more free than others', to hallow George Orwell...

Is the great unwashed public to be trusted with full access to raw information, or do they need it interpreted for them?

In my business, we always publish the uninterpreted image in parallel to the interpreted, so the reader can judge how "good" your interp is.

The minute you claim (or even hint) that the "source" cannot be revealed for some reason or other, you lose the ability for the public, or the Commander-in-Chief, to verify that information.

Go back and read your post carefully. It shouldn't be difficult:-

2 Paragraph-sentances, 56 words...

... and more than two meanings!

* "right" does not imply political right. Stalinist Russia was well known for this tactic.