NYTimes article on leaked WikiLeak archive of Iraqi docs

I had to post this, even if no one has the time to check it out. You've probably heard about the NYTimes' posting of the WikiLeaks archive of 'secret' (whatever that means) military documents from Iraq detailing all kinds of bad, heretofore unreported things.

It's as fascinating from a rhetorical perspective as it is grim and horrible. What really got my attention was that the article on the NYT site has links to the actual documents, so that you end up with the military version of many of the stories told in the article itself. The newspaper and military stories are wildly different in their form, style, slant, appearance, and purpose.

I have so many questions. What are the unstated assumptions of each? What kind of storytelling is each? What kind of story do they tell together? Can you even think of them as separate stories? Can you think of them as the same story that is showing you two sides of something that can't possibly be viewed at the same time, as if we could see both sides of the moon at once - like a cubist story? What the hell am I talking about?