By Bob Parks ——Bio and Archives--November 23, 2009
American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
With the release of hundreds of emails byWhat would the New York Times do?scientistsadvocates of global warming showing obvious and entirely inappropriate collusion by the authors--including attempts to suppress dissent, to punish journals that publish peer-reviewed studies casting doubt on global warming, and to manipulate data to bolster their own arguments--even the New York Times is forced to concede that "the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists."
Apparently the paper's environmental blog, Dot Earth, is taking a pass on publishing any of the documents and emails that are now circulating. Andrew Revkin, the author of that blog, writes,It's assuring to know the New York Times operates within the boundaries of journalistic ethics, consistency, and integrity.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.This is the position of the New York Times when given the chance to publish sensitive information that might hinder the liberal agenda. Of course, when the choice is between publishing classified information that might endanger the lives of U.S. troops in the field or intelligence programs vital to national security, that information is published without hesitation by the nation's paper of record. But in this case--the documents were "never intended for the public eye," so the New York Times will take a pass.
View Comments
Bob Parks is a is a member/writer of the National Advisory Council of Project 21. Bob’s websites are Black & Right and youtube.com/BlackAndRight