UPDATE: Andrew Revkin responds with an update on Dot Earth, which I repeat here. He now agrees that privacy expectations were not justified in the UEA Climategate emails. Perhaps now we’ll see some discussions of them, with publications of selected Climategate emails, on Dot Earth in the future.
– Anthony
==============================================================
From the NYT Dot Earth Blog, Monday, Nov 29th, 2010:
[Nov. 29, 3:41 p.m. | Updated In the last couple of days, some conservative commentators have compared the treatment of the East Anglia climate files in this post with the dissemination of Wikileaks files by The Times and charged that a gross double standard exists.
I’ll note two things about my coverage of the unauthorized distribution of the climate files:
First, while I initially did not publish the contents of the climate files and e-mails (at the request of Times lawyers, considering the uncertain provenance and authenticity of the materials at the time), I did (from the start) provide links to the caches of material set up elsewhere on the Web.
Second, in the rush on the day the files were distributed across the Web, I called them “private” when, in fact, I should have said their senders had presumed they were private. As I’ve said off and on since then, given that much of the research discussed in the exchanges was done using taxpayers’ money, any expectation of privacy wasn’t justified.]
=========================================================
The NYT published details in 2005 about US efforts to eavesdrop on Al Qaeda, and is publishing info from the stolen Wikileaks Iraq messages, but they they wouldn’t publish the ClimateGate emails.
Mr. Revkin, your selective bias, and the bias of your newspaper (and your Dot Earth Blog) is screaming loudly for all to hear.
From Powerline blog:
The New York Times is participating in the dissemination of the stolen State Department cables that have been made available to it in one way or another via WikiLeaks. My friend Steve Hayward recalls that only last year the New York Times ostentatiously declined to publish or post any of the Climategate e-mails because they had been illegally obtained.
Surely readers will recall Times reporter Andrew Revkin’s inspiring statement of principle:
“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.”
Interested readers may want to compare and contrast Revkin’s statement of principle with the editorial note posted by the Times on the WikiLeaks documents this afternoon. Today the Times cites the availability of the documents elsewhere and the public 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. Given the Times’s outrageous behavior during the Bush administration, the same observation applies to the Times’s protestations of good faith.
==========
h/t to WUWT reader “rk”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
well it certainly was in the public interest to have the climategate mails published. How else could people see that there was nothing of substance there.. hehe.
I would like to raise the idea that this latest Wikileaks dump was planted. It seems to me that the emails about Iran’s nuclear weapons and North Korea’s nuclear weapons portend serious changes in policy.
tj says:
November 29, 2010 at 10:43 am
“Wikileaks is transparent if you stop and think about it.”
We don’t know whether the material is authentic; we don’t know who selected it for publication; we don’t know who funds Wikileaks; we don’t know the services and nations that back Wikileaks. We don’t know how Assange got that rape affair in Sweden turned down in 24 hours.
What do you mean with transparent?
theduke says:
November 29, 2010 at 11:12 am
At 7:27 am this morning I posted the following here at WUWT:
————————————————————————————————–
Ross Douthat had a column in the NYT today on ………
They didn’t publish the post. I guess they are emulating RealClimate by censoring opinions with which they don’t agree. The important thing to remember about liberals in this day and age is that they are no longer liberal.
=======================================================
And yet, here it is, for all to read and comment on. A direct copy and paste……
theduke says:
November 29, 2010 at 7:27 am
Ross Douthat had a column in the NYT ……
=======================================================
Guys and gals, sometimes the comments go to the spam filter for various reasons, sometimes the reasons are unknown. Other times, the moderators may take a break, personal, or food or whatever…… If you post a comment and it doesn’t say “awaiting moderation”, simply make another post telling the mod that it is likely gone to the spam hole. My experience is that the mod will retrieve and post. Other times, you simply have to wait, just like everyone else.
steven mosher says:
How else could people see that there was nothing of substance there..
I disagree with that sentiment, but I doubt anyone will ever look into the manipulation of accounts at UEA that is most definitely suggested in this email.
Forgot the link, I guess:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=332&filename=1056478635.txt
sharper00 says:
November 29, 2010 at 7:17 am
@H.R.
“whereas in the case of military/state communications we are paying our government to stay informed but keep the details secret until those details are no longer in play.”
The problem is with the criteria for “secret”. Once there’s a “secret” category the criteria for what goes in there and increases over time, eventually encompassing “Everything we’d find inconvenient for the public to know”. I remember reading an article before about the difference between the way the average American perceives foreign policy versus the way the people in the foreign countries perceive it. A big part of that difference is the way the US government presents itself to the American public versus the reality for those on the business end of those policies.
#######################
you have
A: never had to classify a document in your life OR
B: forgotten the obligations of every document creator and the penalties associated with failing to follow the guidelines.
start here for an example:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html
The definition of Secret is clear. It does not change over time. The same goes for TS and for TS/SAR. There are two ways to mis classify a document: over classify or under classify. You can actually be punished for both.
(1) “Top Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.
(2) “Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.
(3) “Confidential” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.
Sec. 1.4. Classification Categories. Information shall not be considered for classification unless it concerns:
(a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;
(b) foreign government information;
(c) intelligence activities (including special activities), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;
(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;
(e) scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism;
(f) United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities;
(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects, plans, or protection services relating to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism; or
(h) weapons of mass destruction.
Within each of these categories you even have further categories and when you are given a clearance you recieve training in the appropriate marking of information.
“After its own redactions, The Times sent Obama administration officials the cables it planned to post and invited them to challenge publication of any information that, in the official view, would harm the national interest. After reviewing the cables, the officials — while making clear they condemn the publication of secret material — suggested additional redactions.”
They conferred with the Administration about publishing. Isn’t that precious.
Let us imagine, for a moment, that they showed the same restraint and conferred with the Obama White House concerning the breaking news of the leaked Climategate emails. We can see clearly where priorities lie for our President and the NYT. The reputations of a handful of climate scientists and Pres. Obama’s persuit of carbon dioxide legislation are far more important to him than the lives and safety of our troops, or our interests in the stability of the Middle East, or our future intelligence sources in the region.
Louise says: November 29, 2010 at 7:49 am
Provide Monckton’s response to this “response to Monctkon” please. And note who wrote this response. Mann and Abrahams. What, you think they answer all Monckton’s issues? Look here – another place where Monckton was apparently demolished – until you read Monckton’s answers to the “demolition” job. People quote Gavin’s “demolition” as if to prove Gavin’s case that Monckton is not credible – but they omit Monckton’s reply. Warmists think it’s enough to quote such put-downs of Monckton but all this shows is they haven’t done their homework.
You have not grasped the fundamentals of law, which justly insist that the defendant defend himself, not just for himself, but also against the plaintiff’s attacks of his defence.
well wikileaks is clearly an intelligence operation – cnn and the nyt are simply running an add campaign for cia, mossad, whoever is behind them…and whoever is behind them.
James Sexton at 11:30 wrote: “Guys and gals, sometimes the comments go to the spam filter for various reasons, sometimes the reasons are unknown. Other times, the moderators may take a break, personal, or food or whatever…… If you post a comment and it doesn’t say “awaiting moderation”, simply make another post telling the mod that it is likely gone to the spam hole. My experience is that the mod will retrieve and post. Other times, you simply have to wait, just like everyone else.”
——————————————————————
I’m registered there. When I go to the website my name is at the top of the page. My comment was awaiting moderation and said so for at least an hour. I attacked the journalistic practices of the NYT and they spiked the comment. Numerous other comments were posted after mine.
“bias” is mispelt – it’s “buy(my)ass” – when it comes to journalism.
How can anyone of moderate intelligence believe that this cowardly character behind Wikileaks is some kind of folk hero championing investigative journalism or freedom of the press, just managing to get his lucky hands on 250,000 compromising documents, and indiscriminately publishing all of them? That stretches credulity a bit.
After all, this is the THIRD TIME Wikileaks has pulled off this inside job…somehow…and the Justice Department has remained silent.
This is no example of investigative journalism or freedom of the press
Re: Wiki. Controlled opposition at its finest, IMO. All the things we don’t know or know are part of the intrigue, but it comes from the press which, as others have pointed out, is a very big business owned by the powerful who allow next to nothing to chance. (Unless by chance an honest blogger gets the info to the masses…like this one, IMO.)
I don’t see why the NYT couldn’t just publish a mere few dozen of the Climategate emails, and coyly proclaim that nobody, including the Administratiton, really approves of the leaks…
“And, we hesitate to mention, you can find thousands more at THIS WEBSITE!”
@ur momisugly Stephen Mosher
“you have
A: never had to classify a document in your life “
Much like 99.9999999999% of the world population this is correct.
“The definition of Secret is clear. It does not change over time. The same goes for TS and for TS/SAR. There are two ways to mis classify a document: over classify or under classify. You can actually be punished for both.”
How many people have been prosecuted for over classifying documents?
As for the definition of secret et all being “clear” they’re all defined relative to what the executive branch determines. So of course if the executive branch happens to determine that something could cause a lot of harm (like for example, people finding out about things the executive branch did) then it safely classify it.
One wonders what sort of hockey stick could be produced by graphing the amount of documentation unavailable to the citizens of the United States concerning the activities of the US government.
If you’re going to tell me that this is all very trustworthy and above board and we can all sleep safely knowing over classifying documents is treated very seriously indeed then I really don’t believe you.
The counterpoint between that and of course needing to read all the emails of climate scientists couldn’t be more stark.
@Zeke the Sneak
“After all, this is the THIRD TIME Wikileaks has pulled off this inside job…somehow…and the Justice Department has remained silent.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20101129/us_ac/7300258_bradley_manning_at_the_center_of_another_wikileaks_leak
theduke says:
November 29, 2010 at 12:28 pm
James Sexton at 11:30 wrote:…….
“I’m registered there. When I go to the website my name is at the top of the page.”
=====================================================
Sorry man, I misinterpreted what you were stating. My bust.
James
Ah, because there’s a beam in my eye I can’t point it out in others? Is that it?
Unfortunately if pointing out hypocrisy worked this way, we’d all be hypocrites and humanity in general would be a lot less trustworthy. Which, as it happens, is probably closer to the truth than we might like to admit.
But there’s a more important issue here. the New York Times is a major publication with influence. Anthony is a weatherman with a blog. Beating Anthony because of his own alleged dishonesty because he’s pointing at the NYT is like telling the farm hand he/she stinks and therefore can’t complain about the paper factory next door.
But even if you consider Anthony large and influential (perhaps the stock horse of the farm?), it’s still perfectly appropriate and indeed expected for major media outlets to point out the bad faith of other media outlets.
In short, your complaints are silly. This is the only major climate blog that allows just about any comment outside of a straight ad-hom attack or blatant troll. Most other climate blogs explicitly censor any comment not in support of CAGW, and some even tell you this on the front page. In fact, Anthony is actually too loose IMHO, because there’s simply too much conspiracy theory that gets tossed out. So here you can say whatever you want and watch how it filters out, but Anthony is the liar? That’s an interesting stance to take, and it’s fun to watch how your comment filters out in an uncensored forum.
Guess this means the NYT gave up hope on a federal bailout of the newspapers.
And here they were so nice to Obama during the election and afterwards, not publishing virtually anything that’d embarrass him.
I thought I saw a mention somewhere that the NYT was thinking about going all-online, ditching the print version. That’d make a wonderful Green statement, “Save a tree, recycle an electron.” It would also unfortunately eradicate some very good remaining uses for the Times: puppy training, pet cage lining… And papier-mâché! Oh, the horror! Think of the children!
Rockey @ur momisugly 9:53, said it first, but both Jeremy and sharperoo both assume facts not in evidence. While “we” can all agree that the Wikileaks material undoubtedly involves lawbreaking, the same cannot be said of the climategate e-mails, whose source remains unknown.
Enneagram @ur momisugly 6:27 makes a good point. Given the political preferences displayed by ‘Pinch’ and Andy, their conduct probably shouldn’t be described as hypocritical, as they actually believe they’re doing the right thing. The proper term for this is duplicity.
@steven mosher says:
November 29, 2010 at 12:04 pm
sharper00 says:
November 29, 2010 at 7:17 am
@H.R.
“whereas in the case of military/state communications we are paying our government to stay informed but keep the details secret until those details are no longer in play.”
The problem is with the criteria for “secret”. Once there’s a “secret” category the criteria for what goes in there and increases over time, eventually encompassing “Everything we’d find inconvenient for the public to know”. I remember reading an article before about the difference between the way the average American perceives foreign policy versus the way the people in the foreign countries perceive it. A big part of that difference is the way the US government presents itself to the American public versus the reality for those on the business end of those policies.
#######################
you have
A: never had to classify a document in your life OR
B: forgotten the obligations of every document creator and the penalties associated with failing to follow the guidelines.
=======================================
Steve, that’s great info, but I have to side with sharper00 on the basic point that government agencies have a tendency to escalate what is considered “secret.”
BUT, FOIA requests usually bring it all out when some department or other is overclassifying documents. It comes up when someone sues over an FOIA denial and a judge has to look at the requested info and then finds out it’s overclassified. Fine. The system works. What worries me is the cases I (half) recall were instigated by newspapers or news magazines and they are running short of money to press suits nowadays. Who will guard the guardians?
I don’t expect anything but hypocrisy from the one time ‘Grey Lady’ which has fallen a long way over the last years. It’s bad enough that they run Tom Friedman’s nonsense about climate, a subject about which he knows nothing. But like a faded prostitute, who keeps showing 30 year old pictures of her glory days, Friedman has his Pulitzer prizes which were for writing that had no connection with climate at all. Most people will give winners of such prizes a benefit of the doubt, no matter how little they know about a new and completely different subject.
Zeke, I for one am damn glad they published the stuff, your protest is feeble-minded at best. This leakage let’s Americans know what kind of nonsense goes on under the cloak of secrecy! Wake up, America!
BTW, Anthony…
“…but they they wouldn’t publish…”
Should probably be: “…but they said they wouldn’t publish…”