The New York Times Model

The idea, we have been told from time immemorial it seems, is that a news organization like the New York Times would be dedicated to the principle of objectivity, so it wouldn't matter what the ideological/political proclivities of the individual reporters or editors were. If they voted 90% for one party over another we were never to worry because their objectivity would save the day. If you were to question that assumption based upon, oh I don't know, maybe a rudimentary understanding of human nature, well, you were a bad person who didn't appreciate how hard these journalists work. (Yeah, it was always a non sequitar, but that's what they always said.)

Well, Power Line points to something interesting. When the Climategate documents were released last year, the Times science reporter, presumably with the backing of the Times editors, stated the following policy:

"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."

What noble principles!

Yesterday, however, the Times published the following concerning the Wikileaks papers:

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....

The question of dealing with classified information is rarely easy, and never to be taken lightly. Editors try to balance the value of the material to public understanding against potential dangers to the national interest. As a general rule we withhold secret information that would expose confidential sources to reprisals or that would reveal operational intelligence that might be useful to adversaries in war. We excise material that might lead terrorists to unsecured weapons material, compromise intelligence-gathering programs aimed at hostile countries, or disclose information about the capabilities of American weapons that could be helpful to an enemy.

On the other hand, we are less likely to censor candid remarks simply because they might cause a diplomatic controversy or embarrass officials.

Unless, of course, those remarks are made by scientists espousing the pet catastrophe theory of today's left, in which case "mum" is the word.

As Power Line states:

Without belaboring the point, let us note simply that the two statements are logically irreconcilable.

But I'm being silly. Of course, the famous objectivity of the Times will come and save the day. All we need to do now is redefine what objectivity means.

ob·jec·tiv·i·ty
n.
1. The state or quality of being objective.
2. External or material reality.
3. Whatever the New York Times says it is.