The “New York Times” and shielding sources

The September 17 “New York Times” has an editorial for “freedom of the press.” On the surface, the argument that sources leaking classified information have to be protected is convincing.

It would seem hard for the press to do its job if the government is allowed to cover everything up. However, that is in fact the case — classification being a fact of life in a supposedly free country.

Hence to get the truth about Abu Ghraib, wiretapping etc., the press relies on leaks. Now the “New York Times” wants to protect the leakers with a new law.

In the past, I have also bought into the “New York Times” argument. We undercut it to the extent that we pointed out Noam Chomsky’s analysis that bureaucrats only leak what is in their bureaucratic, family or profit interests.

Beyond the interests of the leaker, there is also the matter of the interests of the “New York Times.” MIM had a website of over 100,000 readers a month, before the “New York Times” printed stories based on classified information and started passing aesopian ole’ boys network stuff as well. The “New York Times” was late to the Internet and to this day struggles to win back the influence that the MIM has internationally, while the “New York Times” is far more influential locally.

A series of insinuations now floats around in the blogosphere, information that should still be in classified files. The justification has been other insinuations that I should have run for office by now and they were just vetting me.

The fact of the matter is that I did not run for office before the insinuations started. Quite, the contrary, the New York Times was making money based on stories destroying my privacy.

With the MIM website down, it is hard to conclude other than that leaking of classified information is part of a non-competitive business practice of the “New York Times” enforcing the will of the Democrats and to a lesser extent the Republicans against third parties like MIM being targeted with insinuations.

The “New York Times” is the flagship of the Democratic Party. When it had the chance, it did not report news that would have prevented the MIM website’s being shut down. Now the “New York Times” is intertwined into the criminal conspiracy that shutdown the MIM website to reward a lynching.

The problem with leaks is that they are uneven and serve uneven purposes. It’s not just the leaker that has self-interests, but the leak-receiver. Through a form of psychological warfare involving die-hard partisans organized largely by the “New York Times,” the “New York Times” has shut down the MIM website.

To this day, the “New York Times” is in receipt of regular intelligence on MIM, including text from computers that are not and never are connected to the Internet. It’s not vetting MIM for office but a violation of privacy that also serves the competitive interests of the “New York Times” in destroying other popular websites.


One Response to “The “New York Times” and shielding sources”

  1. Don’t wait for the “New York Times” « Mimdefense's Weblog Says:

    […] I have explained before that the “New York Times” has engaged in a non-competitive practice against MIM. […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: