Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Principles and the Times

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't think I'll ever take a word that's printed in the New York Times seriously again. Scott Johnson at Powerline lays it out nicely:


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 emails 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."

Interested readers may want to compare and contrast Revkin's statement of principle with the editorial note posted by the Times on the WikiLeaks documents this afternoon. Today the Times cites the availability of the documents elsewhere and the pubic interest in their revelations as supporting their publication by the Times. Both factors applied in roughly equal measure to the Climategate emails.

Without belaboring the point, let us note simply that the two statements are logically irreconcilable.

No doubt. As Groucho Marx once said, "These are my principles. And if you don't like them, I have others." The Times has developed great facility in compartmentalizing its principles.

No comments: