Monday, November 23, 2009

Has the New York Times hit a new low in hypocrisy?
Mike Rappaport

About the hacked e mails, its reporter/blogger writes:

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.

Apparently this policy does not apply to military secrets.   (Hat tip: Ed Discroll)

https://rightcoast.typepad.com/rightcoast/2009/11/has-the-new-york-times-hit-a-new-low-in-hypocracymike-rappaport.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bf6e253ef0120a6c68bab970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Has the New York Times hit a new low in hypocrisy?
Mike Rappaport
:

Comments

Actually, your post demonstrates everything that has gone wrong with conservatives: thinking that an individual's privacy right might be less important than the government's. Spilling government secrets is the press's civic duty. Breaking into a shrink's office without a warrant, even if he's a VA employee, is not what I call honorable.

Posted by: True Conservative | Nov 23, 2009 5:19:25 AM

Thank goodness we don't rely on the Times anymore for news.
This ABSOLUTELY should be on the front page of every newspaper because they are GOVERNMENT FUNDED STUDIES being twisted to serve a purpose. The purpose is to create the world's largest trading commodity out of air and impose a tax on the WORLD using of FAKED SCIENCE.
(How the hell does that compare to a "shrink"s office????)
Why was it ok to leak the emails of wall streeters? All office correspondence is far from private. Especially when you accept govt grants to cheat.

Posted by: athena | Nov 23, 2009 6:04:29 AM

I suspect that you mean "Apparently this policy does not apply to American military secrets".

Posted by: dearieme | Nov 23, 2009 7:32:15 AM

I think they are differentiating "public" secrets from "private secrets." Military issues can be argued (though your post does not specify what military secrets you are referring to) to be a public interest, since it more directly relates to transparent public policy. Private research draws a different line, even when publicly funded (note: east anglia research was probably not funded by the United States). For example, when we fund McDonnel-Douglas and Boeing's research into the F-22, those companies should still own the rights to that research, and allow them to keep it a trade secret. When we examine how much research funding is going each political party's loyally-voting senator, that should be public.

Thanks for the post.

Posted by: Tim Donahue | Dec 5, 2009 2:07:43 PM

More and more people began to collect air jordan shoes.

Posted by: air jordan shoes | Jan 21, 2010 1:41:44 AM

You can share some of your article, I'm like you write something, really very good! I will continue to focus on

Posted by: Asics Tiger | May 15, 2011 5:31:50 PM