For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
NY Times Hypocrisy Watch: We’ll Publish Wikileaks Info, But Not ClimateGate
Written By : William Teach

Powerline 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!

0
  • RKae

    And I’m supposed to be horrified about Valerie Plame being outed?

  • Don_cos

    the NY Times would not publish the ClimateGate

    Of course not, that wouldn’t get any Americans or our allies killed.

  • Anonymous

    It simply depends on who or what will be damaged. If the aggrieved party is the U.S., Republican party, et.al., then it MUST be published in good conscience! Any of the liberal causes? Not a chance in hell!

  • http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

    I note Drudge is linking all of the leaks even while condemning them.

    • Proud Infidel

      But Drudge also carried all of the Climategate articles.

  • Proud Infidel

    And they wonder why their circulation and subscription numbers are in the toilet, I wonder how soon they’re gonna bawl for a Government bailout!!

  • http://www.h-c-g.biz H-C-G

    Envidia sana.

Advertisement
Featured Video

Who Is Brett Kimberlin?

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”
Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth
Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers
The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation
The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans
Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders
Advertisement
User Info

Users Online