NYT Discovers Blurry Redactions, Not Blurry Ethics
One might applaud the NYT for this groundbreaking revelation, if it weren't for the fact that internet sleuths and independent journalists had exposed these 'redactions' weeks, if not months, ago. (Remember the citizen who used a simple photo editor?). The real question isn't the clumsiness of the redactions, but why the powerful entities involved—namely, the DOJ under multiple
administrations—allowed such an obvious obfuscation on a case with such high-profile connections. It's a convenient 'error' that protected certain names until it couldn't. Instead of probing the Department of Justice's consistent opacity and questionable handling of a case steeped in elite impunity, the Times offers a performative gasp at a technical glitch. It's a classic maneuver: focus on the
accidental transparency, not the deliberate secrecy. Perhaps a hard look at who benefited from the original 'redaction strategy' would be too uncomfortable for the institutions they typically defend.