Of Sticky Wickets and Old Harlots: The Hypocrisy of The New York Times


James Delingpole hits a home run (or would that be a “run” or “wicket” using cricket terms?) in “Wikileaks: Old Gray Lady invokes the harlot’s prerogative.” He exposes the arrant hypocrisy of the New York Times, though why anyone who was alive in the early 70s would be surprised in inconceivable; the Times, after all, “broke” the Pentagon Papers.

I think it’s important that we should “belabor” the point by remembering a few more occasions where the New York Times has been happy to sacrifice principle in order to get across the “correct” political message:

1. In 2007, “Pravda” gave the radical anti-war group MoveOn.org a $77,508 discount to run a full page ad attacking the then US commander in Iraq General Petraeus as “General Betray Us.”

This is just the most recent egregious example of ‘media bias’; Julian Assange has managed to paint a target on his own back, between accusations of sexual assault and his self-aggrandizing publication of confidential, secret and top secret U.S. documents. His manipulation of Bradley Manning by no means excuses Manning’s treason; however, the absolute vindictiveness Assange exhibits toward the U.S. seems to have no basis in reality. He appears to be just a jealous little man, who is overstaying his 15 minutes of fame, come hell or high water. And outlets such as the NYT are more than willing to accommodate him, as long as his “information” is detrimental to the U.S.

As Mr. Delingpole shows, in late 2009 the Times, with nose firmly in the air, refused to consider the “hoax factor” regarding “climate change.” Yet here in late 2010, little over a year later, they are taking as gospel the release of information on communications which are supposedly protected at all costs?

The NYT’s assertion that they have “All the news that’s fit to print” rings more hollow every year. Perhaps their editorial staff would be happier working in Leningrad or Beijing, or Pyongyang, where their claims of ‘pravda’ (‘truth’) would only receive scrutiny if they overstepped governmental regulations.

There are reasons documents are classified, not least of which is to protect lives. WikiLeaks throws that into a cocked hat. The stench of sanctimony is overpowering; per the Times, WikiLeaks, which threatens hundreds, if not thousands of lives, is “good,” whereas the “outing” of ONE CIA former operative/then-desk jockey is “bad.” Maybe, if someone had thought to contact the Times to break the Plame story, it would have been “acceptable.”

Most folks in the U.S. might want to refrain from downloading or passing on the information they may read; disclosure and dissemination could lead to some rather severe penalties. (Hat tip to Old NFO).

To paraphrase an old Hollywood line, “treason is such an ugly word”; but treason is what Julian Assange is guilty of – he has asserted his ego is more important than nations’ security, including that of his birth, Australia. Being put in stocks and flogged are too good for him.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Blogplay
  • Ping.fm
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Sphinn
  • PDF