Jim covered Congress and The White House during the George W. Bush administration for The Washington Times, and worked as a reporter, editorial writer and columnist for newspapers in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and California. He has appeared on the Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, C-Span, and many local and national talk radio shows to talk politics and policy.
Latest posts by Jim Lakely (see all)
Scott Johnson was astute enough to point out on the Power Line blog tonight that The New York Times has varying standards when it comes to disseminating secret information.
For those who try to expose the fraud of the “climate catastrophe” scam known as ClimateGate, the “newspaper of record” refuses to report — for weeks after the British press picked it up. The Times gave this excuse back then [Emphasis mine.]:
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.
OK. But it’s hard to imagine documents more “never intended for the public eye,” or filled with “private information” and likely acquired “illegally” than the stuff that reveals the state secrets found on WikiLeaks. And what does The New York Times do? They report the latter — with little hesitation, but contradictory justification.
The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match.
Of course, the same could be said about the ClimateGate emails. Exposing them would have served “an important public interest” that would have helped with “illuminating the goals” of the Warmist Mafia that tried to succeed in keeping viable their back-channel censorship of contrarian scientists. And, as a newsy kicker, the emails would have revealed the “frustrations” of the global warming alarmists in not doing as well with their censorship as they’d hoped — thus the conspiracy to blackball any credentialed dissent.