US: The New York Times first debated publishing a story about the US administration's secret eavesdropping on Americans as early as last autumn, before the 2004 presidential election.
However, the newspaper held back the story for more than a year and revealed the secret wiretaps only last Friday, when it became apparent that a book by one of its reporters was about to break the news, according to journalists.
The report in the Times has created a furore in Washington, with politicians in both parties and civil libertarians saying that President Bush was wrong to authorise the surveillance by the National Security Agency without permission from a special court.
Mr Bush and his supporters have responded in kind, saying that the eavesdropping was needed to protect Americans following the September 11th terrorist attacks. On Monday the president called the public reports on the once-secret surveillance "shameful".
Politicians, journalists and internet commentators have feverishly aired the debate about the timing of the story, with critics on the left wondering why the newspaper waited so long to publish it and those on the right wondering why it was published at all.
Conservatives suggested that the newspaper had timed the story to persuade members of congress to oppose reauthorisation of the Patriot Act, the federal law which granted the government sweeping surveillance powers. They also charged that the newspaper wanted to short-circuit good news for the Bush administration - the high-turnout, relatively violence-free elections in Iraq.
Times executive editor Bill Keller rejected those alleged motivations and also the suggestion that the timing of the story was linked to next month's scheduled publication of State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, the book by Times reporter James Risen which includes information on the National Security Agency's spying programme.
"The publication was not timed to the Iraqi election, the Patriot Act debate, Jim's forthcoming book or any other event," Mr Keller said in a statement.
"We published the story when we did because, after much hard work, it was fully reported, checked and ready, and because, after listening respectfully to the administration's objections, we were convinced there was no good reason not to publish it."
The Times had reported last Friday that it held back the story for a year because the White House had argued that it could jeopardise continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists.
In his statement, Mr Keller said the Times had printed the story after further reporting had uncovered additional "concerns and misgivings" about the surveillance.
This had persuaded editors that they could proceed without exposing any intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities which were not already on the public record.
The initial Times statements did not say that the newspaper's internal debate began before the November 2004 presidential election - in which Iraq and national security questions loomed large - or make any reference to Risen's book, which is due out on January 16th.
But two journalists, who declined to be identified, said editors were actively considering running the story about the wiretaps before Mr Bush's election showdown with Senator John Kerry.
The Times eventually decided to hold the story. But discussion was renewed after the presidential election, with Risen and the co-author of the story, reporter Eric Lichtblau, joining some of the editors in pushing for publication, according to the sources.
"When they realised that it was going to appear in the book anyway, that is when they went ahead and agreed to publish the story," said one of the journalists. "That's not to say that was their entire consideration, but it was a very important one."
Both journalists said they believed the Times editors had been overly cautious in delaying publication for more than a year. But they also believed that the delays appeared to be in good faith, with editors having taken to heart the national security concerns raised by the Bush administration.