Today [25 April 2011]the 'New York Times' had extensive coverage of almost 800 recently released US diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks on the US prison at Guantanamo. GuamDiary encourages its readers to compare the coverages of these documents with that of the UK 'Guardian', French 'Le Monde', and German 'Der Speigel', for the emphasis is different in each.
Twice in the investigative reporting spread out over four pages, the Times reporters slip in the phrase, to the effect, that this broadsheet of note received the cables from a source other than Wikileaks. Probably that source is the Guardian.
Wikileaks, at first, shared its information with the Times, then struck the newspaper off its list of recipients for a reason Julian Assage explained in an interview on 'Democracy Now'. The Wikileaks founder thought that the 'gray old lady' of US press aristocracy had betrayed 'her' journalistic integrity by showing the documents and its reporting first to the Obama White House before breaking the story.
The Times' cosiness with the US government is well known and documented, the printing of the 'Pentagon Papers' almost a half century ago notwithstanding. Salzburger & co., playing it coy and two sides of the street, cut and pasted its journalist cloth to a government fit. And this is the reason, the Times was and continued to be cut out of Wikileaks loop, and must depend on the kindess of the Guardian newspaper.
It also explains why Assange has reservations about the 'Washington Post', and it goes a long way to explain why Bill Keller the Times' editor in chief never refrains from 'ad hominem' attacks against Assange. Keller feels insulted and humiliated and is on the warpath to avenge his and the Times' honour.