Double-standards at the NY Times, part "infinite"
When hacked emails began to appear on the web in 2009 suggesting that climate scientists at East Anglia had falsified global warming data, the New York Times refused to publish a single word of the leaked info. Here's their explanation:
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.
But when the website WikiLeaks unveiled hundreds of thousands of stolen classified government documents--many potentially embarrassing to the U.S.--the Times immediately published a sample of the information. Here's their explanation:
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.
The double-standard hypocrisy is stunning. Did you catch the rationale in the first Times explanation? These "statements...were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here."
Then wouldn't you logically think (I know, I know, liberals don't use that faculty) that the classified cables written by U.S. diplomats back to the home office would similarly not have been intended to be seen by the public? So what happened to the Times' earlier standard? Why did it go out the window in the Wiki-leaks case?
Because (obviously) the latter case damaged the U.S. There can be no other explanation.
Anyone else would surely be embarrassed to be so blatant in their double-standards. But as the mouthpiece of the Left, the Times has a responsibility to show aspiring young lefties how it's done.