The New York Times suddenly discovers the virtue of discretion

From The Weekly Standard:

With the release of hundreds of emails by scientists advocates of global warming showing obvious and entirely inappropriate collusion by the authors — including attempts to suppress dissent, to punish journals that publish peer-reviewed studies casting doubt on global warming, and to manipulate data to bolster their own arguments — even the New York Times is forced to concede that “the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists.” But apparently the paper’s environmental blog, Dot Earth, is taking a pass on publishing any of the documents and emails that are now circulating. Andrew Revkin, the author of that blog, writes,

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.

This is the position of the New York Times when given the chance to publish sensitive information that might hinder the liberal agenda. Of course, when the choice is between publishing classified information that might endanger the lives of U.S. troops in the field or intelligence programs vital to national security, that information is published without hesitation by the nation’s paper of record. But in this case — the documents were “never intended for the public eye,” so the New York Times will take a pass. I guess that policy wasn’t in place when Neil Sheehan was working at the paper.

(Read the rest here.)

My thoughts exactly.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://OgBlog.net Earl

    Are we surprised…..I hope not.  Anyone who’s been paying attention for the last decade could have predicted this exact outcome!
    Check out the videos of the ‘Climate Change, the Solar Weather Technique and the Future of Forecasting’ Conference at Imperial College, London. 28th October 2009.  Great stuff.

  • SADIE

    Warning:   Do not let anyone from the NYT baby sit   – They throw the baby out with the bathwater.

  • Mike Devx

    Under “integrity” in the dictionary, the New York Times is listed as its antonym.
     
    You can debate whether ‘The Pentagon Papers’ should have been published.  But to publish THEM, and then not publish THIS, is a blatant violation of any claim to integrity.
     
    Just another piece of evidence that the New York Times can no longer be taken seriously about anything.  When a newspaper clearly becomes nothing more than a mouthpiece for one political party, for its one-sided movements… when objectivity is clearly rejected… that newspaper is dead and  finished.
     
    As this particular scandal ripples, the side-effects are where things get most interesting.  The New York Times is a dinosaur that just made a Grade-One stumble into its La Brea Tar Pits.  What a HUGE mistake they just made on this story!  For this story is the liberal smoking gun of smoking guns, and the position that each liberal entity takes on it will reverberate for YEARS.  The New York Times just made perhaps its most critical mistake in ten years concerning media bias.  As the next few months unfold, you will see the ramifications continue to mount.
     
     

  • Mike Devx

    Just to be clear, the critical mistake is that the NYT blog issued this as an official statement:
     
    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.

    When it is convenient, the NYT has performed expose after expose – even to the point of severely damaging national security – concerning information that was “never intended for the public eye”.  For them to even CONSIDER, for even a tenth of a second, daring to make this official statement, is a howler of truly magnificent proportions.

    One thinks that the NYT will issue a retraction of this statement, because the statement is not merely egg on its face, it’s an ocean of egg they’ve just leaped into.  But the NYT is so far gone, I really don’t expect a retraction.  Not anymore.   Too far gone, baby!  Too far gone!

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    The thing is, enemies of the NYTimes tend to die, thus permanently removing them from the equation. But the New York Times never dies, not his staff members or their editors or their writers. So they will keep trucking on, because where there is life, there is hope.
     
     
    What has made the NYT so effective in these past few decades being a mortal enemy of the US Constitution is that the New York Times is protected from death, but their victims are not. So their victims die, and the New York Times simply retreats, regroups, and selects another target.
     
    There can be scandal about the NYTimes, like Jason Blair, but nobody dies.
     
    As an alternative, dead people tell no tales. Thus the New York Times, regardless of how many people know it is lying, is still there to defend themselves. But few remain to defend their dead victims.
     
     
    In a war of attrition between yourself and a mortal enemy, the more of you they kill, the more they win. Even when it looks like they have defeated themselves in the bargain. It only looks like the NYTimes is defeated, but their enemies are defeated in actuality, buried and dead.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    Case in point: NSA wiretaps. The Left got them to be reviewed under FISA or some such, every 30 some odd days for ‘Constitutional’ protections. Well, the wiretaps on Hasan were terminated by a judge, even though he knew Hasan was engaging with Al Qaeda religious leaders.
     
    So Americans are dead because the New York Times won. And those aren’t the only ones.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    The Left likes to use lawsuits to extort things from private companies. Yet the NYT is a private company but their victims cannot redress their grievances in either civil or federal courts. Because free speech somehow protects the NYTimes from paying the price for killing their American enemies.
     
    Partly, there is a lack of lawsuits because the enemies and targets of the NYTimes are conservatives and they normally do not have a cadre of lawyers aiding and abetting the systemic looting and extortion of private companies. Nor are there government and legal regulations giving such lawsuits cover, as there is for environmental protection regulations violated by, say, woodworkers.
     
    But more importantly, there is a lack because the New York Times intends to kill their American enemies, while those same enemies attempt to protect the NYTimes and defend their right of free speech to the death. Well, it’s going to be death, alright, the death of the NYT’s enemies.
     
    People like to talk about moderation and compromise and bi-partisanship. Dead Americans at Fort Hood is what happens when you make a single compromise with ideological enemies of America. So go ahead and make compromises with Dems and the Left, but don’t think you’ll have clean hands afterwards.

  • SADIE

    “a dinosaur that just made a Grade-One stumble into its La Brea Tar Pits”
    Wonderful analogy to the La Brea Tar Pits.  The paper poses the same threat to the pool of readers as it’s counter part did to prehistoric animals – Read the relic and become ONE!