28 December 2010
With a brief Christmas Day editorial, "Banks and WikiLeaks," the New York Times editorial page finally broke its silence on the official campaign targeting WikiLeaks, the news site that has published leaked US diplomatic cables. The Times did so, however, only to give its backhanded support for the campaign, led by the Obama administration, against WikiLeaks.
The Times has maintained a complete silence in the face of the threats of prosecution against the web site, which have escalated in the wake of the leak of hundreds of thousands of State Department documents. It has said nothing about the calls for Julian Assange—the organization's founder—to be arrested, declared an enemy combatant and even assassinated.
Its first editorial on the persecution of WikiLeaks came at the bottom of the editorial page on Saturday. This obscure position itself highlights the newspaper's tacit support for the campaign against WikiLeaks.
Acknowledging that WikiLeaks "has not been convicted of a crime," the Times writes that "the financial industry is trying to shut it down." It cites the decision by Visa, MasterCard, PayPal and Bank of America to refuse to process transactions and donations involving WikiLeaks.
The editorial makes clear, however, that the Times has no principled objections to this attack on democratic rights and freedom of the press—which essentially amounts to a threat by US banks to strangle any news organization that falls afoul of Washington. Indeed, the New York Times apparently believes the banks should have such powers.
Rural American Progressive
In Unity is Strength
--
Alan
Missouri, United States of Amerika
Rural American Progressive
In Unity is Strength
