The phrase "direct access" was used in the original Guardian article that made the accusation and was a core part of the accusation, hence it's not surprising it's been used in the denial.
The WSJ article was about NSA requesting CDRs from Verizon. This is not the same as having unrestricted access to private user data as the presentation titled PRISM claims.
The strange thing is that just having a presentation is usually not enough for the HN crowd. If it would have been, I would never have to execute on any of my ideas beyond the presentation stage. Personally, I really don't think some making a presentation is really evidence of anything.
I'm really not sure why HNers reacted differently in this instance though.
Sorry, kind of have to throw "benefit of the doubt" out the window when dealing with "massive state-wide surveillance programs that have no transparent oversight."
Amazing how all them, to a company, are using the "direct access" phrase.
Plausible deniability for the whole world to see along with the revelation of the biggest spying operation in history.