Now is the time at SDA when we juxtapose!
Columbia Journalism Review, December 2009 – When the [Climategate] e-mails first leaked, however, reporters and bloggers on both sides of the debate expressed reservations about the legality and ethicality of publishing information acquired illegally.
New York Times, July 2010 – Below are a selection of the reports from a six-year archive of classified military documents published by WikiLeaks…
Gee, these scandals and outrages concerning our fringe left betters keep going on and on.
The left’s philosophy has always been some people are more equal than others, so the “illegal” climate-gate emails versus the informative “WikiLeaks” fits right in with their thinking.
Now, now. Hypocrisy is the standard, you know.
The legality of both leaks have been widely questioned in the media.
It is only illegal if the “law” is “interpreted” so as to “make” it illegal.
And it is only the liberal judges which interpret the law properly, don’t ‘cha know?…and also their media/blogger friends.
kane, while the legality of both have been widely questioned, the willingness to divulge the information contained within each has been completely different. Most newspapers, at least initially, preferred to not publish any details of the leaked climategate emails. Instead, they tried to make the actual theft of the emails as the story. Their stance on the Afghan leak, however, is the complete opposite. Yes, they mention the legality of the leak and how serious it is, but they also make a point of repeating many of the subjects found in the leaked documents without any of the concern they showed regarding climategate.
A Jourolist sighting at the CBC!
Henry Champ actually mentions the fact that the Jourolist existed.
Of course it was after he had his ass handed to him in the comments of his Sherrod story that he mentions it.
“For example, you might remember the story of the group of liberal journalists, think-tankers and journalism professors who formed an internet chat group to talk about what they were doing and work together to advance what they saw as their cause. The group was called Journolist (very cute) and its membership did not attract many well-known practitioners, Joe Klein of Time magazine being the exception.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/07/27/f-rfa-champ.html#socialcomments#ixzz0uzO2Sp00
Juxtapose!!
Until the media changes it’s ways, Kate will have no shortage of material. A virtual goldmine.
Newspaper (expen$ive)subscription > Bill of Goods
sda (by donation) > reality
Releasing info about Nixon? – the public has a right to know.
Releasing info about Obama? – we must respect his privacy.
Journolist lives…..
Much smaller…….called cabalist…
….. the same cast severely vetted….
……same narrative and agenda……
I am convinced that the brazen Corruption of the MSM in the first decade of this century will be a story that historians focus on with much intensity.
With that said, my sense is that in the “old days”, the media was much more up front about their political leanings and anyone reading a particular newspaper, for example, immediately knew what the slant was.
What bothers me to no end nowadays though is how “journalists”, who are nothing short of “journolists”, all of whom appear to have no self awareness about their own political biases. They’ve somehow convinced themselves that mainstream Americans & Canadians reside in the same Left and Far-Left areas of the political spectrum as they do. The fact that this is not the case shows how ignorant & in denial so-called intelligent people can be.
It’s only illegal if it doesn’t fit their agenda.
So what’s your point, Kate? That it’s hypocritical to be in favour of one leak, but not the other? Leaving aside that you yourself are selective in which leaks you support (in your case the reverse of the opinions you quoted), isn’t it possible that there are important differences between these two leaks that might lead one to support one, but not the other?
How do your own ethics compare?
Dunbar: If you’re going to charge someone with being hypocritical then the very least you can do is provide examples.
Seems to me than DunBar’s moniker should be DumbBar
If this story is true, Afghan lives have been put at risk. I don’t think you can say the same for the Climategate people. The most they had to lose was their reputations.
http://www.execte.com/politics/2010/hundreds-of-afghan-informants-named-by-wikileaks-2807913.html
Canadian Press Online – Science Matters :
All Suzuki ….. barf
More at “Unambiguously Ambidextrous”, building on Kate:
‘Leaked AfPak docs: Journalistic ethics? Shmethics! Plus: “Shame on [Canadian] us”–and the NDP’
Mark
Ottawa
The CBC, too, played up the importance of reporting on the Wikileaks story, that Canadians have a right to know. Not apparently the leaked Climategate emails, though. Their hypocrisy is stunning! Add to that the fact that last week the CBC blasted BP for using photoshop. As soon as I saw the segment, I immediately thought of SDA’s posting of a blog several years back in which CBC itself used photoshop to make the air from a coal-fire plant along Toronto’s western lakeshore look more acrid and poisonous than it actually was… perhaps someone can provide the link.