I didn't know the WaPo story had been authored by someone working with Assange to make a documentary on WikiLeaks. That would at least explain why "data directly from" was misinterpreted to mean "backdoor direct access" since I doubt she had the training to disambiguate the terms used.
Not that it matters too much anyways, I'm assuming it wasn't an OpEd and therefore she'd still have received the normal editing and source-checking services. But I do wonder if there is any reporting that was done by those who don't hold quite as much of a bias as Poitras and Greenwald, for the same reason I would be suspicious of a history of the Iraq invasion authored by Rumsfeld...
The Washington Post story was double-bylined (and also credited several other reporters and researchers), and the lead byline went to Barton Gellman, who used to be full-time at the WP but (AFAIK) is at TIME magazine. Not sure what the publishing process for this story was about (it seems unusual to have a story lead-bylined by only non-staff members), but I imagine it had something to do with the Guardian dropping their bombshells and the WP deciding that it also should publish (perhaps this story had been in the works, but wasn't originally going to be published this week).
disclosure: I know Gellman as an acquaintance through a colleague and consider him to be a great reporter...but I'd probably say that anyway just based on him wining the Pulitzer for his reporting on Dick Cheney (http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2008-National-Reporting)
There are many reporters working on this, not just Greenwald or Poitras. The most recently released slide directly contradicts the statements by Google and Facebook:
Given that they used the same phrases in their denials, it would seem they have been fed talking points, and are are using a novel interpretation of direct access. For example if Google or FB interpret a real-time mirror as 'not direct access', their statements are technically true, while at the same time being misleading. Doubtless the truth will come to light eventually, but for now we'll have to wait for more information and denials.
No, if anything it supports the Google/FB interpretation.
From this slide it appears the distinction between the two types of data collection are between "indirect" on-the-wire intercepts and "direct" where the data's obtained from the company holding it. Given the context it could be referring to FISA obtained documents.
It's not really a "novel interpretation" of direct access if all access to a company's servers have to go through the company. That's a subpoena-on-steroids and not much more, and this additional slide which the Guardian was so kind as to decide to provide to the masses doesn't really dispute that interpretation.
It's not yet clear that anything in the original piece is actually wrong, despite some carefully worded denials. I think it's unfair to judge him as misinterpreting something (yet).
As best as I can tell Greenwald was claiming that the NSA managed to backdoor most major Internet PIM service providers for the unbelievably low cost of $20 million.
You couldn't really do that for $20 million just on labor cost alone, so it was clear there was more to the story, it was just a question of what.
To be clear the story is important enough that I don't think it should be required to overstate or mislead either. Transparency of data collection and intelligence services is a conversation that America should at least have, whether it's backdoors or not.
Not that it matters too much anyways, I'm assuming it wasn't an OpEd and therefore she'd still have received the normal editing and source-checking services. But I do wonder if there is any reporting that was done by those who don't hold quite as much of a bias as Poitras and Greenwald, for the same reason I would be suspicious of a history of the Iraq invasion authored by Rumsfeld...