Ed Driscoll describes how we are experiencing another major attempt by the liberal mainstream media to resist covering a story harmful to the political agenda of the left.
Seeing as they each impact key pillars of what today passes for liberalism, there seems to be more than a few connections between the recent ACORN stings by Giles, Oâ€™Keefe and Breitbart, and the recent hacking of the emails of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit, or â€œGlobal WarmingGateâ€, as Charlie Martin dubs it elsewhere at Pajamas. Not the least is that they each sent the legacy media into full gatekeeper mode, hoping to prevent exciting, important news of current events from ever reaching their readers. Or perhaps, like the scandal last year involving John Edwards, sitting on the stories for so long, while making claims that they have to endlessly research them to verify their authenticity â€” Keep rockinâ€™! â€” that when the legacy media decides to go â€œpublicâ€ with news that everyone already knows, they can dramatically dilute the ultimate impact of these stories.
Michael Goldfarb, in the Weekly Standard, quotes the New York Times, which has suddenly discovered standards of disclosure preventing them from publishing secret documents contrary to the wishes of their authors.
With the release of hundreds of emails by scientists advocates of global warming showing obvious and entirely inappropriate collusion by the authors — including attempts to suppress dissent, to punish journals that publish peer-reviewed studies casting doubt on global warming, and to manipulate data to bolster their own arguments — even the New York Times is forced to concede that “the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists.” But apparently the paper’s environmental blog, Dot Earth, is taking a pass on publishing any of the documents and emails that are now circulating. Andrew Revkin, the author of that blog, writes,
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 wonâ€™t be posted here.
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. I guess that policy wasn’t in place when Neil Sheehan was working at the paper.