The Times would rather hurt their country than hurt the warming alarmists

Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair expose journalistic double standards:

The Times would rather hurt their country than hurt the warming alarmists

Andrew Bolt

Wednesday, December 01, 2010 at 12:09pm

2009 - the New York Times explains why it won’t publish leaked documents exposing the Climategate scandal:

A thick file of private emails and unpublished documents generated by an array of climate scientists over 13 years was obtained by a hacker from a British university climate research center and has since spread widely across the Internet starting Thursday afternoon… 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.

2010 - the New York Times explains why it will publish leaked documents that expose no scandal but do endanger national security:

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.

These monstrous hypocrites, these kneejerk partisans do not have the brains to see the logical inconsistency in their position, or the self-perception to even attempt to rationalise it.

Scott Johnson:

Today the Times cites the availability of the documents elsewhere and the pubic interest in their revelations as supporting their publication by the Times. Both factors applied in roughly equal measure to the Climategate emails.

Without belaboring the point, let us note simply that the two statements are logically irreconcilable. Perhaps something other than principle and logic were at work then, or are at work now.