Keller's essay on the NYTimes collaboration with WikiLeaks - which, with Assange's recent troubles, falls to the level of 'celebrity profile' for those keeping track - contains stuff like this:
An air of intrigue verging on paranoia permeated the project, perhaps understandably, given that we were dealing with a mass of classified material and a source who acted like a fugitive, changing crash pads, e-mail addresses and cellphones frequently. We used encrypted Web sites. Reporters exchanged notes via Skype, believing it to be somewhat less vulnerable to eavesdropping. On conference calls, we spoke in amateurish code. Assange was always “the source.” The latest data drop was “the package.” When I left New York for two weeks to visit bureaus in Pakistan and Afghanistan, where we assume that communications may be monitored, I was not to be copied on message traffic about the project. I never imagined that any of this would defeat a curious snoop from the National Security Agency or Pakistani intelligence. And I was never entirely sure whether that prospect made me more nervous than the cyberwiles of WikiLeaks itself. At a point when relations between the news organizations and WikiLeaks were rocky, at least three people associated with this project had inexplicable activity in their e-mail that suggested someone was hacking into their accounts. [my emphasis --wa.]
Yes, you read that right. Bill Keller can't decide whether he's more nervous about (1) ongoing, borderless government surveillance by nuclear powers and torture states or (2) a European antiwar dissident snooping in his email. If you've ever wondered how the NYTimes (like almost every other American news organ) ended up cheerleading for Bush's wars, well, there's a hint right there.