As Clay Waters writes at TimesWatch, “Some document leaks are more equal than others” at the New York Times; James Taranto sums up the Gray Lady’s growing schizophrenia with a pair of quotes one year — and two very different stories — apart:
- “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.”–New York Times, on the Climategate emails, Nov. 20, 2009
- “The articles published today and in coming days are based on thousands of United States embassy cables, the daily reports from the field intended for the eyes of senior policy makers in Washington. . . . 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.”–New York Times, on the WikiLeaks documents, Nov. 29, 2010
How can the Times deal with global warming or the global war on terror (no matter how interrelated war and its “moral equivalent” can seem to self-styled progressives), when it’s still coming to grips with how the last long war ended?
As William McGowan’s new book, Gray Lady Down, reminds us, the Times is certainly challenged enough already from basic reality, but at Commentary, Max Boot adds his own “Challenge to the New York Times: Publish Your Internal Correspondence:”
Reading the New York Times’s “Note to Readers” explaining why it has decided once again to act as a journalistic enabler of WikiLeaks, I wondered why, if the Times believes that openness is so important to the operations of the U.S. government, that same logic doesn’t apply to the newspaper itself. The Times, after all, is still, despite its loss of influence in the Internet age, the leading newspaper in the U.S. and indeed the world. It still shakes governments, shapes opinions, and moves markets, even if it doesn’t do so as often or as much as it used to.
Imagine if the stentorian language employed by the Times were turned on itself. The editors write that
the more important reason to publish these articles is that the cables tell the unvarnished story of how the government makes its biggest decisions, the decisions that cost the country most heavily in lives and money. They shed light on the motivations — and, in some cases, duplicity — of allies on the receiving end of American courtship and foreign aid. They illuminate the diplomacy surrounding two current wars and several countries, like Pakistan and Yemen, where American military involvement is growing. As daunting as it is to publish such material over official objections, it would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name.
Isn’t it presumptuous to assume that readers of the New York Times have no right to know what is being done in their name by the editors of the New York Times? Isn’t it important for us to learn “the unvarnished story” of how the Times makes its editorial decisions — such as the decision to publish the WikiLeaks documents? Sure, we know the official explanation — it’s in the newspaper. But what happened behind the scenes? Maybe there were embarrassing squabbles that will make for juicy reading? Therefore, I humbly suggest that in the interest of the greater public good (as determined by me), Bill Keller, the editor, and Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher, should release to the world all their private e-mails and memos concerning WikiLeaks.
Actually, let’s make our document request broader: the Times should share with the world all its internal correspondence going back years. That would include, of course, memos that disclose the identity of anonymous sources, including sources who may have risked their lives to reveal information to Times reporters. Of course, just as it does with government documents, we would give the Times the privilege of redacting a few names and facts — at least in a few of the versions that are published on the Internet.
Of course, if the stress of all that doublethink gets to be too much for Pinch’s beleaguered troops, they can always relax “Where Marxists make Merry,” as another Times headline with a duality all its own recently spotlighted.
Still though, unlike the Hide the Decline moment last year, which cast the Green Supremacists’ “Global Warming” machinations in a whole new light, some of the items disclosed by WikiLeaks very much fall into the category of conventional wisdom.
Such as:
- This just in: John Kerry is still a yutz.
- Barack Obama edges closer to Carter Country daily.
- George W. Bush’s rep continues to slowly improve.
What will happen next as the drip, drip, drip of leaks continues?
There may be a lot of ruin in a nation but how much is there in a newspaper? The biggest leak over the last 20 years has been that of the carefully and expensively built up credibility of the New York Times. At what point point can people simply ignore it? I could see the House attaching a rider onto an appropriations bill that except for specific purposes of administrative necessity, such as Justice Department investigations of misconduct, no government monies are to be expended to purchase the product of, advertise on, subsidize, or in any way assist the New York Times.
I needed a leak to know that the NYTimes is a leftist rag, and has Communist sympathies, if not outright leanings?
I needed a leak to know that John “reporting for duty” Kerry is a sellout to enemy interests?
I needed a leak to know that the lapdog media has principles of convenience, that they would take polar opposite positions…yesterday from today…depending upon whether it helped a leftist Democrat or hurt a conservative or a Republican?
Those who watch MSNBC, are the same who read the NYTimes…and who vote far leftists into the Democratic Party. They reconnoiter with Soros, they champion ACORN/SEIU, they blog on Kos and Huffpo, they teach at Columbia and they make movies in Hollywood.
We are afraid to say this, because it will be called McCarthy-ism. But what is far leftism, if it isn’t Maoism, small c communism, large C communism, stealth socialism, open socialism?
Is Van Jones not a Communist? Is Carl Davidson not a Maoist? Is Jan Schakowski not a stealth socialist? Is Bill Ayers not a small c communist?
Is ACORN/SEIU not stealth socialism?
Did John Kerry not meet with North Vietnamese enemies of state? Did John Kerry not call for Israel to give up its very seat of government, the home of the Knesset, the residence of the Prime Minister, the President and its Supreme Court?
Why are we afraid to call these things what they are? Why do we not call them by name?
We have been bullied into a halting, hesitating and subliminally weak language, where we adopt words and phrases that further enhance distortion. “Progressives”, “elite”, “liberal”, “mainstream”…where the words define the precise opposite of what they describe.
If I am wrong, I need to know why. What I see with my own eyes is rampant, unchecked leftism being infused into every nook and cranny of this land of ours. A lapdog media that is nothing more than a front group for it and a Democratic Party that is held hostage by it.
An antipathy toward Israel that is now virulent.
And a tear down the system intent against America.
Would someone on the right of center (truly centrist or center right) please explain to me how I am seeing that incorrectly? I beg of you. It is an open request for all those who inhabit the middle of the political spectrum.
Because if I am seeing correctly, then we need no leaks to understand…our information stream is under assault, our system of government is under attack and we are playing parlor games, fiddling like Nero.
I agree with everything you say here, but take heart. 2010 tuned out to be the largest conservative Republican landslide in several generations. 2012 will build further on that. The challenge is daunting as hell: having to overcome not just the liberal/progressive/marxist Democrat machine, but the mainstream media, academia, Hollywood, Big Labor, and The Leviathan (i.e., The Bureaucracy) as well. But the American people are rising to the occasion. We see the writing on the wall. We understand how dangerous the times are, and we are not going to allow the gals on The View (et al.) to do our thinking for us.
“What will happen next as the drip, drip, drip of leaks continues?”
Who knows..?
Who cares..?
One thing for certain is buyer beware advice to the new Republicans..
Choose your battles wisely.
Anytime Obama, McCain and Graham publicly agree on something; avoid it like you would a snake in wet grass.
Wikileaks and freezing federal worker’s pay are smoke and mirrors silver bullet sucker punches that will put your career out of commission before you go out of the starting gates for the first time.
The same goes for calling and sucking up in agreement to Limbaugh, Hannity or Levine’s shows.
Happy puppies quickly learn not to bite the hands that feed them.
Instead of kicking them in the face, smart dog owners understand that occasionally you have to let the dogs out from under the porch and pet them.
That’s why it’s more useful to read blogs where writers actually pick things apart and at the same time tell you where they stand instead of supposedly politically-neutral news outlets that break every rule of journalism.
The two quotes from the NYT at the beginning say all that needs to be said about the paper and it’s decision making. If something puts their agenda in jeopardy, they SQUELCH IT. They couldn’t care less when it comes to national security. In that case, they just want to sell newspapers. All of a sudden, capitalism ain’t so bad! Their claims of “the public has the right to know” make me sick. I trully believe that they couldn’t care less about the public either.
I defer to my wife on many issues concerning our lives. We are not aligned politically. One area that I will not give in on is this: That RAG of a newspaper is never in my home!
Mr. Driscoll,
All I can say is, Thank the Gods for Matt Drudge and his witty 5-10 worded headlines for the UNABASHED BIASED global news stories infiltrating the walking dead masses. NYT is included in said fish wrap.. in both paper and digital print!
Josh Shahryar – Excellent point! The differing views from the infinite-like more knowledgeable writers on blogs and the differing viewpoints (yep, that includes you trolls.. for fodder that is!) of their posters is FAR MORE engaging than some AP type of writer or dimwit from said newspaper.
Thanks for your perspective, Josh.
Consider also that Climategate was over violating the presumption that science isn’t secret, and that doing science requires verification through sharing of data. Affairs of state presume secrecy, the violation of which can get people killed, but usually not the editor of the NYT–nor, might I add, has any climate scientist involved in Climategate died. One cannot say the same for the little people doing the fighting and dying so the NYT can peddle their wares with a good conscience.
Secrecy, and confidentiality are tools Governments use to protect
the nations they serve. Governments in turn are elected or dismissed by the voters who judge the Governments sucess or failure.
Julian Assange and the New York Times have decided for themselves
to pre-empt all that. They know best. The problem is they are responsible to
no one but their own inflated egos. They are not elected they answer no questions, and they are indifferent to how many people die because of their egotism. In this way they destroy the entire Democratic process and must be stopped. Julian is on the run from Western courtroom charges, but he is also on the run from non Western governments who play by a different set of rules. I predict Assange will meet with a accident in the near future, most likely at the hands of the KGB.
Isn’t it more likely that this leak occurred with the full participation of the current administration? It seems to me that what is going on here is velvet revolution – what better way to turn citizens against their present form of government than to point out its duplicity, even against so-called friendly countries? I doubt that the New York Times would be publishing the Wikileaks unless it had the full green light of government. That’s just how they roll now. In any event, it makes me despise the current regime all the more and I wonder what other wonderful stories they will have to tell us in the future.