NYT wouldn't publish leaked Climategate docs, will publish wikileaks docs:
NY Times Hypocrisy Watch: We’ll Publish Wikileaks Info, But Not ClimateGate
(Read WP posts from William Teach) | (Read MT posts from William Teach) | rssPowerline makes an interesting observation
The New York Times is participating in the dissemination of the stolen State Department cables that have been made available to it in one way or another via WikiLeaks. My friend Steve Hayward recalls that only last year the New York Times ostentatiously declined to publish or post any of the Climategate e-mails because they had been illegally obtained. Surely readers will recall Times reporter Andrew Revkin's inspiring statement of principle: "The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won't be posted here."
So, the NY Times would not publish the ClimateGate documents which would damage their pet pseudo religion/cult, but, will stand up and publish material acquired illegally that contains all manners of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, material that can do serious damage to American interests around the world. Even though some of the material can hurt Obama, I suppose in Liberal World, damaging the United States' standing is more important.
And, consider, from Anthony Watts
The NYT published details in 2005 about US efforts to eavesdrop on Al Qaeda, and is publishing info from the stolen Wikileaks Iraq messages, but they they wouldn’t publish the ClimateGate emails.
Mr. Revkin, your selective bias, and the bias of your newspaper (and your Dot Earth Blog) is screaming loudly for all to hear.
Remember, all manner of Very Important People begged the Fish Wrap to not expose the "domestic wiretapping" (which was anything but) program, including high ranking elected Democrats. Nor was this the only secret operation the Times exposed. There was the terrorist finance tracking program, among others. Remember, Bill Keller, the Times' public editor, wrote, regarding the decision to publish the finance story
It's not our job to pass judgment on whether this program is legal or effective,.........
Yet, they seemed to pass judgment when deciding to not publish the climategate material. Of course, like I wrote, the NY Times could care less about damaging the United States, especially when Bush was president, the other is about protecting a fake issue that would provide more power to government and redistribute wealth.
Crossed at Pirate's Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. sit back and Relax. we'll dRive!
Hypocritical Bastards at NYT will publish wikileaks not Climategate |
