>
Article snippet: Around midday on Wednesday, The New York Times published several photographs showing, in eerie detail, the makeshift shrapnel, shredded blue backpack and powerful lead acid battery used by the Manchester bomber who killed 22 people. The story accompanying the photos, describing the forensic evidence and crime scene found by investigators, said the bomber’s torso had been heaved toward the entrance of the Manchester Arena. Nothing in the story directly states the source of the material but it says the evidence was photographed and distributed by British authorities. Now, British officials are accusing U.S. intelligence of leaking the material, saying it could seriously impede an investigation into the deadliest terrorist attack in Britain in more than a decade. Following complaints by Prime Minister Theresa May, President Trump has called for a Justice Department investigation into the “alleged leaks.” Why did The Times publish the evidence and how did it weigh the public interest in the information against any potential damage to the investigation? Dean Baquet, the executive editor, said he understands why some readers are concerned but he stands by the decision. It is rarely an easy decision when editors are weighing the public’s right to know against government concerns that publishing certain information might jeopardize investigations. In this case, the decision to publish has generated hundreds of emails from readers expressing a mix of fury and disappointme... Link to the full article to read more