The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.Take note of that link: just two days ago (November 29, 2010) the author (Andrew Revkin) made an update to his post of over a a year ago (November 20, 2009) trying to explain what he meant, in hindsight. Clearly, the Times is sensitive to the issue of their own hypocrisy.
The New York Times on the illegally acquired Wikileaks cables, which clearly "contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye:"
The articles published today and in coming days are based on thousands of United States embassy cables, the daily reports from the field intended for the eyes of senior policy makers in Washington. The New York Times and a number of publications in Europe were given access to the material several weeks ago and agreed to begin publication of articles based on the cables online on Sunday. The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match.The message goes on to say that they will actually publish some of the cables, too. So yes, there you have it, hypocrisy at it's best. The New York Times has not been relevant for years, so I guess we should have come to expect this by now.