Apparently a couple of people are unhappy at my suggestion that WSJ is sometimes a propaganda arm of the USG.

I just wanted to re-interate that suggestion, and invite those people to learn some history. But only if they're interested more in facts than fantasy.

I got my definition of what Propaganda is from Ed Bernays. You might do the same.

You would do better to lay out the specific points you feel were distorting the truth. That would be more persuasive than name-calling.

If it's propaganda, I don't feel it's very effective as it reports serious wrong-doing within the government, and directly contradicts the president saying the NSA isn't “actually abusing” their powers. That's quite a serious allegation and not at all supporting the government position, which is that there's nothing to see here and no abuses have occurred.

I find it more likely it was written by a journalist with some sympathy to the government position and comfortable in their post at the wsj, who thus doesn't want to rock the boat too much, rather than one paid to distort the truth in the service of the government. I can't agree with lots of the conclusions and feel it is far too soft on the NSA, but it's hardly one-side propaganda beating the drum for the government.