The War on Subheadlines

Honestly, this just makes the White House look worse because it implicitly legitimizes the story even more.

The White House on Wednesday took the rare step of publicly asking The New York Times to change the sub-headline of a story on the destruction of CIA tapes showing the interrogations of suspected terrorists.

At issue is the story’s sub-headline that stated: “White House Role Was Wider Than It Said.” The White House called this sub-headline inaccurate and demanded that it be corrected.

They're claiming that they never said they had a minimal role in the destruction of the tapes; the statement is "We have not described — neither to highlight, nor to minimize — the role or deliberations of White House officials in this matter.”

Doesn't that mean they're conceding some sort of role?

UPDATE: The White House is trying to have it both ways on this one. They've made plenty of comments on background about their role in the tape destruction.

The right will just see the White House attacking the New York Times and have a beer, but this is actually an admission.