Spot the difference

I'm not going to make any comments on the items exposed by Wikileaks themselves, but I would like to take a moment to compare and contrast the way the media report them in comparison to the way they reported the so-called "Climategate" emails - because the difference in the way they are reported and treated are stark.

When the story about the Hadley data broke there was very little comment from the mainstream media about the content of the data - instead they focused on how the data was "hacked" or "stolen". Any analysis of the actual content was left to the various "sceptic" blogs such as Watts Up With That? and Climate Audit.

The mainstream media - and particularly the alarmist supporters at the BBC, Guardian and Independent - concentrated instead on who obtained the information, how and why. Later, rather than follow up on the considerable evidence discovered by the aforementioned blogs, these media outlets merely reported on the inquiries into the leaks.

With the Wikileaks revelations there is no such concern being shown by the BBC, Guardian or Independent who are happy to report on the content without bothering to worry about how the information was obtained, by whom and, more importantly, why.

Of course, I expect nothing less from the likes of the Guardian and Independent. These organisations make no attempt to be impartial or balanced, but the BBC is supposed to be - which begs the question ..... why do they treat one set of leaks different from another?

Could it be that it suits their agenda to do so?

Makes you wonder.