The New York Times Dismisses Assange Claim...By Confirming It.

For the latest glorious example of "doublethink" check out how Eric Schmitt of the New York Times dismisses Assange's claim to have offered U.S. government officials to go through leaked documents to ensure that no innocent people were identified. He does this in a rather ingenious way, by confirming that Assange had done exactly that.

From Fox News

Also on Saturday, a New York Times reporter who has been the newspaper's liaison with Assange, dismissed Assange's claim that WikiLeaks had offered to let U.S. government officials go through leaked documents to ensure that no innocent people were identified. Assange told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. in an interview that aired Thursday that the New York Times had acted as an intermediary and that the White House hadn't responded to the offer...

And now the "doublethink" part:

Times reporter Eric Schmitt told the AP that on the night of July 23, at White House spokesman's Robert Gibbs' request, he relayed to Assange a White House request that WikiLeaks not publish information that could lead to people being physically harmed.

The next evening, Schmitt said, Assange replied in an e-mail that WikiLeaks was withholding 15,000 documents for review. Schmitt said Assange wrote that WikiLeaks would consider recommendations made by ISAF — apparently meaning the U.S.-led United Nations International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan — "on the identification of innocents for this material if it is willing to provide reviewers."

Schmitt said he forwarded the e-mail to White House officials and Times editors.

"I certainly didn't consider this a serious and realistic offer to the White House to vet any of the documents before they were to be posted, and I think it's ridiculous that Assange is portraying it that way now," Schmitt wrote to the AP.

So Eric Schmitt doesn't think it was a serious and realistic offer. That's very nice of him. That's not the same as suggesting the offer didn't happen. But what else do you expect from a New York Times reporter, or a Fox News article.