Monday, November 23, 2009

The sanctimonious hypocrisy of the New York Times

Michael Goldfarb notes this little tidbit of hypocrisy from the New York Times. While so much of the blogosphere is buzzing about the emails from British and American researchers on global warming discussing how they can best combat arguments from skeptics of human-caused global warming, the NYT is struggling with whether or not they should publish the emails that seem to show a willingness to deceive the public and perhaps even distort or delete the data to support their arguments. And, as Goldfarb notes, the NYT's environmental blog refuses to post the content of the emails.
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.
Oh, so now the New York Times suddenly gets all prim and proper about publishing what wasn't meant for the public eye. What about all those top secret information that they happily published when George W. Bush was president. As Goldfarb writes,
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. (links in the original)
I guess that policy wasn't in place when the New York Times was pursuing the right to publish the Pentagon Papers. But now, when global warming is the issue, they suddenly get all sanctimonious about what they're willing to publish. How typical