Important story, miserable coverage from NYT. Author relies upon unnamed sources for the bill's contents rather than reading it himself. (Probably can't read that well) He tells us who is for it and who is against it, but he fails to tell us poor citizens and voters what the bill actually contains. What are the rules for intercept of foreign to foreign, foreign to domestic and domestic to domestic calls. Does it treat email like a cell phone call? What about domestic to domestic calls where one party is a foreign embassy located on US soil? In short James Risen displays the profound ignorance of the typical MSM reporter

Sources, we have sources. We have "un-named congressional aides, we have "others" familiar with the details. We do not have a name. We have no idea of the agenda of the sources. We do know the agenda on the NYTs. So all in all a typical NYTs piece, poorly sourced, agenda driven and factually deficient.