“I’m aware that there has been some criticism that baffles me a little bit, that the Times has not reported the criticism that the Obama administration has not been as aggressive on some national security issues as some critics wanted. I would argue pretty strenuously that we have covered that as aggressively if not more aggressively than anybody else,” said Baquet. “That’s why I’m not completely thrown or upset if we did in fact miss that filing.”

Today, ABC’s Jake Tapper chimed in with a blog post that hit the right points, which, while a step towards prominence, certainly isn’t the same as a World News segment.

But it is an indication that, as Greg Sargent, of the Washington Post-owned Plum Line put it this morning, that “This story is getting more and more attention … and will be one to watch.”

It does seem seems like the story—with Talking Points Memo, this morning, hosting a banner headline linking to five takes on the filing—may finally be about to go big.

If that happens, it won’t, of course, be because the substance of the filing changed in the last week. It will be because condemnations of the argument began to trickle in from the ideological media, and started to be voiced by elected officials—including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who under Olbermann’s prodding on Thursday, seemed to delicately agree with Olbermann’s critique, saying that “it shouldn’t be that way … the position of the Bush administration was so egregious … we can never have a repetition of what was done under the Bush administration, or a continuation.”

That growing debate will certainly be worth covering.

But so were the administration’s quiet arguments in court.

If you'd like to help CJR and win a chance at one of 10 free print subscriptions, take a brief survey for us here.

Clint Hendler is the managing editor of Mother Jones, and a former deputy editor of CJR.