The New York Times has offered some lame excuses for burying their story on the JFK airport plot on Page 30.
Besides insisting that the plot was not developed enough to endanger JFK -- in which case, one would think it's newsworthy it was interrupted before it could come to fruition? -- the paper also seemed to feel that because we are now facing these threats on a repeated basis, they lose their newsworthiness.
They certainly seem to be buying into John Edwards' theory that terrorism is not a real threat. Isn't informing the public of the ongoing threats to their safety, despite the fact plots are "interrupted," an obligation which a newspaper should take seriously?
Of course it is...but that doesn't fit the Times' agenda.