This is a striking example of how big media like the New York Times can try to enforce their own limits on debate by asserting without evidence that certain ideas and therefore the people who espouse them are not mainstream.
The most renowned media critics are usually superficial and craven. That's because -- as one of the greatest in the 20th century, George Seldes, put it -- 'the most sacred cow of the press is the press itself.'
I have been a consistent reader of the print edition of the New York Times since I was 13 years old. That is why I am gratified to see the Times ombudsman, Arthur S. Brisbane, in his swan song column finally state the obvious.
Responding to complaints over a New York Times story, Times Public Editor Arthur Brisbane has written that the complaints were just, and that the New York Times should correct the story. As of this writing there is still no correction.
Rather than focus on the substance of the leaked diplomatic cables, American journalists tend to either frame the story as being about the "over-classification" of documents or the personal motivations and private life of Julian Assange.