FP Says the New York Times Aided the Enemy
Here is a paragraph you don’t often see in the mainstream American media:
The conviction of Manning, in other words, would also be a conviction of Bill Keller. Most importantly, if Manning is found guilty on the charge of aiding the enemy, it would strike a deep blow at the stated reason for the New York Times‘ existence. From the beginning, it was supposed to be a force for good, standing up for the little guy in the face of immense state power and terror. A court ruling that claims to prove that the New York Times in the pursuit of that goal in fact ended up aiding al Qaeda would hand a huge rhetorical victory to the Times‘ opponents.
Actually, you still haven’t seen that paragraph. The original, written by Elias Groll for FP.com, predictably mentions Julian Assange and WikiLeaks instead of Bill Keller and the New York Times. The author’s selective memory, however, is not surprising — it’s clear that the mainstream American media has collectively decided to pretend the New York Times did not publish documents leaked by Manning just as enthusiastically as WikiLeaks.
But it did. So if WikiLeaks “aided al Qaeda” by publishing leaked Manning documents (which nothing in Manning’s court-martial indicates, but whatever), the New York Times also aided al Qaeda. And if a Manning conviction means a WikiLeaks conviction, it means a Keller conviction, as well.
Just don’t lose any sleep waiting for the mainstream American media to note that fact.