First published 10:00AM Oct 27, 2010
Collected Evidence of Inconsistencies Today's episode came to my attention at Ace of Spades HQ.
- Cf. NYTimes publishing Wikileaks but not Climate-Gate leaks. Ace h/t: What a difference ideology makes. 11/29/10
| NYT during ClimateGate | NYT Wikileaks now |
| “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.” Andrew Revkin, Environment Editor, New York Times 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 New York Times and a number of publications in Europe were given access to the material several weeks ago and agreed to begin publication of articles based on the cables online on Sunday. 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 editorial 29/11/2010 [not a mention of ILLEGAL!!!] |
Ace calls it really well too:
James Darymple calls this ideological bias. I'm thinking that's not a strong enough term. That's kind of a so-what sort of thing. Everyone's ideologically biased.The whole collection can be found here: Statist Inconsistencies
The Times is ideologically biased, for starters. But what they really are -- and all the media is -- is dishonest in service of leftist ideology.
I realize that's what we generally mean when we say "bias," but maybe we should start spelling it out for those who haven't gotten the message*. Bias sounds like a penny-ante charge. Dishonesty doesn't, and we need to make clear what the charges against the MFM are.
*Hooray! for at least as long as Ace's resolve lasts.
View My Stats
No comments:
Post a Comment