New York Times publishes Wikileaks, buries Climategate

In “A Note to Readers” Monday, the New York Times explained its reasoning for publishing the newest round of Wikileaks documents, telling readers that the paper’s duty to its readers trumps national security concerns and the illegal means by which the documents were acquired. Yet, merely a year ago, the Gray Lady’s noble standards didn’t seem to apply to a series of leaked e-mails between climate researchers.

Citing their private nature and the fact that they were illegally obtained, former Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin refused to publish the so-called “Climategate” e-mails — an exchange between American and British climate researchers discussing withholding data and employing a “trick” to explain their results — in his Times column, Dot Earth.

While the Times neglected to publish the Climategate e-mails that raised questions about the validity of global warming research — research which would be used, at least in part, to determine public policy and how billions of taxpayer dollars would be spent — the Times explains its decision to publish the new Wikileaks documents by saying Americans have the right “to know what is being done in their name.”

Admitting that “most of these documents will be made public regardless of what The Times decides,” the paper’s “Note” says it has laboriously examined the documents and will publish only about 100 diplomatic cables of the entire 1600 megabytes of sensitive data it obtained.

Revkin, whose Times blog moved from the news section to the opinion section earlier this year, decided back during Climategate to link to other Web sites that had published the 200 megabytes of Climategate e-mails.

  • robb32

    As far as I’m concerned the New York Times conspired to commit espionage by possessing and disclosing classified documents; and giving aid and comfort to the enemy engaged in espionage.Their pc’s should have been confiscated b4 the leaks.

  • politicsisdirty

    It is obvious that New York times only publishes documents that will help their Progressive/Liberal agenda? Any document that will hurt the Chosen one is kept from the public eye.

    Remember the Journolists?

  • windrdr

    And tut-tut on buying the whole “Climategate docs were STOLEN (OMFG!!!11!!1!!)” meme. They were placed in a global read accessible file on a publicly visible FTP server at East Anglia University by someone inside the University. Hardly ‘stolen’. Misplaced, perhaps. Left in full public view, certainly. Stolen? Not so much.

  • Mark Carney

    And you wonder why they are losing subscriptions? When the public finds out it is being lied to it deals the end of the NYT with a removal of approval by moving to other sources.

  • WaterGun

    Apparently Wlkileaks site was attacked and shut down, so Wikileaks switched hosting services to, everyone should boycott and express their displeasure with Amazon for helping in the posting of stolen classified documents.

    • OldMexican

      Re: Watergun,

      “Wikileaks switched hosting services to, everyone should boycott and express their displeasure with Amazon for helping in the posting of stolen classified documents.”

      I will continue buying from Amazon, since there’s NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution that states the All-Mighty State can keep secrets from anybody.

      • Mark Carney

        And would like your neighbor like to hear what you tell your kids about how to crap in the toilet when you potty train them??? There are things that Nation States have a right to keep secret no matter how you feel about their policies. Because it would keep some people safe in that if they really know how you felt in private about them it could start WWIII, yes some world leaders are that shallow, even some older US leaders. If we had access to ALL documents from ALL nations around the world, everybody has to show their laundry, everybody!!!

    • windrdr

      Care to back up this assertion (that Amazon is now hosting WikiLeaks) with something other than your claims on the internet? Seems rather counterintuitive that a company that lives and breathes through their ‘net presence and the ability of their customers to access their site would position themselves for a probable DDOS attack.

      • BillyShaft

        From what I understand, they are using Amazon’s cloud computing services. It may violate their Terms of Service to host this material…it may not.

        In general, it would have to be a DDoS on a tsunami scale to effect Amazon’s pipe. They have been playing this game for a long time and are able to absorb staggering amounts of traffic/connections.

  • mundakal

    NYT lost its credibility a long time ago and continues to lose viewership. Their rationale as to what stories they would investigate and pursue and publish is a joke. I hope people will stop reading this stupid rag and boycott its advertisers – hit their pocketbook, the sooner they disappear the better.