https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_S...
The NYT's public editor looked into the matter here:
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/why-no-big-...
> I talked Tuesday afternoon with Marina Walker, the deputy director of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, who told me that her organization’s model – which she calls “radical sharing” – has not proved a good fit for every news organization. In previous projects, she said, ICIJ worked with, or tried to work with, other news organizations, including The Times, and “it wasn’t always a good fit.”
> Part of that, she said, is the idea of sharing all material, not keeping anything exclusive. Another part is agreeing to observe embargoes for when material would be published.
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2016/04/05/panama-papers-global-corr...
The part I have transcribed below starts at 23:29.
Tom Ashbrook (NPR host): "Gerard, why weren't there more american papers, more american news organizations involved in this investigation - New York Times not part, Washington Post ... not part of it - why not, Gerard?"
Gerard Ryle (Director of the ICIJ): "We found it very difficult to get major US newspapers or organizations to collaborate. I guess they feel that they are big enough on their own, they don't need to do this, whereas we found it much easier outside the US to get people to listen to this new way of working. And that's really,... it's been driven by necessity."
Tom Ashbrook: "Was it because you weren't prepared to share all the data with these papers?"
Gerard Ryle: "No, that's not the issue at all. We were absolutely prepared to share everything from day one. What we want them to do though is join the investigation with us and with our colleagues around the world and go on a journey together. So it's not like go at the very end and give them a fully made story - we make the stories together as we go along."
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/why-no-big-...
'Because The Times was not a part of the global consortium and was not aware that the story was coming, it needed some time to get its own story going. “We didn’t know these documents were out there and being worked on,” he said.
“We didn’t have access to the documents, and that is a very big issue,” he said. But Mr. Purdy said he hoped, and had good reason to believe, that that would change soon.'
The NYT can't turn up their noses when they were invited to my birthday party last year, then complain when they don't get invited to my much cooler party this year.
As for "we didn't know": it's unclear on which level the ICIJ communicates with newspapers, but it makes sense that happens on a managerial level, not editorial. So it's not that surprising to me that a NYT editor would be unaware of the documents.
The more interesting part to me, is why the editor expects the situation to "change soon". Has management reversed course now that they see how big the story is getting, or are the reporters/editors up in arms because they were blindsided by management?
> Intriguing about this leak/others: the NYT's decision to suppress their NSA story in 2005 directly robbed them of influence in this decade.
For a newspaper that's otherwise pretty progressive on other societal issues, I wonder if it makes any sense for them to be pro-war and all.
Media content aligns with the political views of media owners. You can see this clearly at work now when 'progressive' US companies threaten to boycott North Carolina over a ridiculously minor issue to do with who should use what kind of toilet, but are happily trading with Saudi Arabia, one of the world's most repressive regimes.
Adding 2 and 2 together gives an indication why the NYT, like most other US mainstream media, cheerled the second Iraq war.
I suggest that you, your co-workers, hacker colleagues, and friends who are transgender spend some time in Saudi-Arabia or on ISIS-controlled territory to get a perspective on what really matters.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/world/americas/insiders...