Ooops. Sorry. I meant SEC Whistleblower claims agency destroyed files. That's the headline making it's way round the blogosphere right now.
Well, here is the wikipedia article, ripped from the headlines. Matter Under Inquiry .
Matt Taibbi wrote the original article in Rolling Stone, and Darcy Flynn is the SEC man who risked himself to expose the activity in the first place.
Financial Times, though, doesn't mention that a magazine about sex and drugs (and music) scooped them on the financial story of the year.
Senator Grassley quizzes SEC on file purging FT.com Aug 17 2011, 10 pmish
Is the SEC Covering Up Wall Street Crimes?, By MATT TAIBBI AUGUST 17, 2011 8:00 AM ET, Rolling Stone
Sorry what was my point?
Taibbi had to get this information, somewhere. He had to get it from someone who leaked it to him.
Somehow, though, this 'leakage' didn't become the story. Instead, the whistleblower became a character in a story about the actual bad behavior of the government. I.E. the headline is not 'SEC leaker under fire', with dour pictures of some schmuck who did naughty things with journalists.
The Headline is that the SEC was destroying evidence in potential criminal investigations. That is the headline, and the Whistleblowers name is in there, as a person to be admired.
Why is this story told in that way, while the Thomas Drake, and other leak stories, have been told differently?