It Depends On What The Meaning Of "Deny" Is

(CBS/AP)

Yesterday, we noted that two of the three phone companies which had been identified in the original story as having entered into a contract with the NSA to provide customer data information have now denied doing so. Less than an hour later, CBS News correspondent Jim Stewart reported on the "Evening News" that all three have issued denials. Did something happen in between the time we posted and the time the story aired? No, it seems just another example of how carefully language is used and how differently it can be read.

Verizon and BellSouth were the two companies we identified as having issued denials of the story. Both have said they were not asked and did not provide to the NSA the information pointed to in the story. AT&T, the third company identified by the NSA had responded in an even more vague way, saying in a statement: "There has been a lot of speculation in the news media. The fact is, AT&T does not allow wiretapping without a court order nor has it otherwise given customer information to law enforcement authorities or government agencies without legal authorization."

Given the fact that the USA Today story claimed the NSA program was done under an agreement between the government and the companies and there was no court order, AT&T's statement can be viewed as a denial of its involvement. But since the article also specifically said that phone calls were not being listened to, a denial of wiretapping seems meaningless at the moment. At any rate, let's stipulate that all three companies have denied at least part of the story.

Where does that leave us? Not any further along than we were yesterday afternoon. As Stewart said in his "Evening News" piece, all these statements are "carefully worded," and the language used in them almost certainly went through a legal firm or two. Others have pointed out some of the slippery language and at least one observer, Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall thinks the companies are lying – or at least telling "technical truths." Marshall points out that Qwest was the only company named in the story as having refused to cooperate with the NSA program, noting:

Qwest was reportedly asked but refused. Verizon says they were never even asked. And through his lawyer, the then-CEO of Qwest confirms that he'd rebuffed the NSA request. What interest would he have in lying about that?

Unless Qwest is the phone service provider of choice for North American jihadists, I think that means Verizon's credibility is very much in doubt.