Washington, D.C. – WikiLeaks has released evidence which shows that New York Times “reporter” Scott Shane handed over Cablegate’s secret country by country publication schedule to the U.S. government, giving the State Department (then headed by Hillary Clinton) up to a week in advance to spin the revelations or to create diversions.
The collusion between The New York Times—supposedly the United States’ newspaper of repute—and the U.S. State Department, reveals a co-opting of corporate media that keeps the public ignorant to government malfeasance and impropriety.
New cable shows New York Times "reporter" Scott Shane handed over Cablegate's secret country by country publication schedule to the US government giving the State Department (then headed by Hillary Clinton) up to a week in advance to spin the revelations or create diversions. pic.twitter.com/DHpqxiXOWJ
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) December 31, 2017
The Times was one of five newspapers that obtained an advance copy of all leaked cables, which began being released on November 28, 2010. WikiLeaks made the specific cables, selected by the newspapers and redacted by their journalists, available on its website.
The New York Times initially covered the story in a nine-part series spanning nine days, with the first story published simultaneously with the other outlets.
The New York Times was not originally intended to receive the leak, allegedly due to its negative portrayal of Julian Assange, but The Guardian decided to share coverage, citing earlier cooperation while covering the Afghan and Iraqi war logs.
The Guardian, a British publication, was revealed to have been the source of the copy of WikiLeaks documents given to The New York Times in order to prevent the British government from obtaining any injunction against the publication to stop the release.
Ironically, instead of having any semblance of journalistic integrity, Times “reporter” Scott Shane emailed Philip J. “P.J.” Crowley, who at the time was the United States Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs—operating under then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—to give the U.S. government a timetable of the WikiLeaks cable releases.
This would subsequently allow for the State Department to prepare in advance for the publication of such incendiary documents—and formulate exactly how to spin the revelations ahead of time.
For an outlet that claims to be a beacon of freedom that holds power accountable, the methods employed by Shane seem to intimate exactly the opposite—the Times will work diligently to protect the ruling political-elite oligarchy, and help keep the public confused.
In the past, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has called the mainstream media “very, very, very inaccurate” corporate presstitutes, and “opportunistic snipers,” accusing newspapers of printing “weaponized text.”
“WikiLeaks is very happy that there is a narrative about fake news out there because we have a perfect record of having never got it wrong in terms of authentications.”
While the corporate press continues misrepresenting information, quoting unnamed and thus unverifiable sources, and even printing flagrant fabrications, Wikileaks has never published anything that is not true and maintains an unparalleled streak of publishing authentic information in the whole of the organization’s existence.
“When the narrative of fake news came out and was then taken off effectively by the neo-liberal press and pushed around,” Assange elaborated. “I could see exactly where that was going. I was rather happy about it.
“What is special about WikiLeaks is that it’s not just another damn story,” Assange said. “It’s not just another damn journalist putting their damn byline, advertising themselves and their position on another damn story.”
Assange explained how Wikileaks’ searchable database contrasts with reading a newspaper like The New York Times,
“You’re not reading pre-weaponized knowledge. When you read a newspaper article, you are reading weaponized text that is designed to affect a person just like you.”
So when The New York Times tells you a fantastic story, just remember that this is the same outlet that is sending release dates of upcoming stories that could potentially be damaging to global U.S. government interests, to the State Department.
Does that sound like journalistic integrity from a newspaper of repute—or something that operates in a manner more akin to a propaganda wing of government apparatus?