- “…while it is enlightening to see these observations in official cables, for the most part they enlarge rather than upend our understanding of complex foreign relations. For example, The Times has reported on numerous occasions that Iran’s Arab neighbors share America’s (and Israel’s) worry about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. The cables dramatize the depth of their concern, but the fact of their concern is not revelatory.”
- “WikiLeaks is not a ‘media partner’ of The Times. We signed no agreement of any kind, with WikiLeaks or anyone else. In fact, in this case—our third round of articles based on documents obtained by WikiLeaks—we did not receive the documents from WikiLeaks. Julian Assange, the founder of the group, decided to withhold the material from us, apparently because he was offended by our reporting on his legal and organizational problems. The London newspaper, The Guardian, gave us a copy of the archive, because they considered it a continuation of our collaboration on earlier WikiLeaks disclosures. (The Guardian initially asked us not to reveal that they were our source, but the paper’s editor said on Sunday night that he was no longer concerned about anonymity.)”
- “We agree wholeheartedly that transparency is not an absolute good. Freedom of the press includes freedom not to publish, and that is a freedom we exercise with some regularity. Yes, the articles were based on a larger data set. The four articles in today’s paper are just the beginning of our series on the cables, which will continue in the days and weeks ahead. Future articles will examine in greater depth a variety of subjects, including China.”
Notice that every question fielded by the NYT comes from a reader with a lemming mentality, as though every NYT reader is a flag-waving nationalist or total brownshirt. None of the questions challenge the NYT's infamous state-coddling coverage. Instead, every reader is upset that U.S. govt policy is in danger, and that all their beloved — and apparently, innocuous — U.S. officials are not being trusted enough. Woe is the State!
But imagine that: a statist editorial board fielding only those questions which make the case for central-govt control over the flow of information and trade — politically-connected editors and publishers making the case for assisting the central warfare state in concealing its immoral and unconstitutional actions in the pursuit of "diplomacy." Imagine a "free" press which then blames technology and poor marketing for their lost readership, revenue, and relevance.
#1 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Mon 29 Nov 2010 at 06:03 PM