The Appearance of Hypocrisy at the NYT – Note to Andy

Paul Chesser of the American Spectator writes about Andy Revkin's lack of coverage at the NYT blog "Dot Earth", in Andy Did Something Good Last Night, and gives him some points for posting a rebuttal.

That's all well and good, but consider this:

Mr. Revkin stated in an earlier blog post that:

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.

Having worked in TV and radio newsrooms myself for 25 years, I can understand and relate to Andy's position, to a point, but I think that point is long past now.

1. Like it or not, the files are now in the public domain, they aren't ever going back to private. They can't be put back in the bottle now.

2. It appears, due to the content, that the people's right to know outweighs the need for privacy.

3. The FOIA process appears to have been purposely circumvented in this case.

4. NYT has in the past had no compunction about publishing private, or even classified government information. For example NYT published information contained in classified documents related to surveillance in the now famous story Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts.

5. In that NYT story it was said that:

Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight.

6. In the US surviellance issue, appears that NYT thought the public's right to know outweighed the need for secrecy, but that action isn't consistent with previous reporting at NYT with far more volatile information.

7/ In the Case of ClimateGate, the files are not classified, the players are known and public, and due to what seems to be public "concerns about the operation's legality and oversight" of CRU it would seem to me that the public's right to know outweighs the FOIA limited privacy concerns, especially since it appears there may have been FOIA laws broken.

8. Revkin himself appears in those CRU emails, suggesting the need for NYT reporting of the issue would be even greater to avoid the appearance of "running cover" for the scientists with whom he collaborated. Yesterday's piece from Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert gives the appearance of "running cover".

9. Other media outlets are kicking your butt.

Anthony Watts http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-appearance-of-hypocrisy-at-the-nyt-note-to-andy/