Situational ethics

The New York Times on the Climategate emails:

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.

The New York Times on the Wikileaks cables:

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.

It all depends on whose ox is getting gored, I see. When the documents damage the credibility of global warming, their provenance is all-important. But, when the documents damage our national security, it’s all about the public’s right to know.

POSTSCRIPT: Interestingly, the former post now has an update attached:

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.

But I’m not sure why they bothered with the update. They go on to make two remarks (which I assume to be true, as I can’t be bothered to verify them), neither of which rebut the double-standard charge.

(Via Patterico.)

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: