Journo-List and Double Standards

Jay Tea at Wizbang writes:

What? Publishing private e-mails? Never mind the public interest in exposing collusion between liberal public officials and liberal allegedly "objective" journalists and liberal allegedly "independent" commentators and pundits, that's just not done! Gentlemen do not read each others' correspondence!

There was the all-too-predictable hysteria. But two of the biggest hysterics found their double standards showing.

Andrew Sullivan spoke up first, defending the right to privacy in one's e-mails. Andrew Breitbart quickly fired back, pointing out how Sullivan had absolutely no problem with invading every single aspect of Sarah Palin's private life -- not only his ongoing obsession with her gynecological details, but even giddily discussing the contents of her private e-mails after her account was hacked.

Sensing a chance to possibly reclaim some hint of relevance, Charles Johnson had to jump in and slam Breitbart. How dare someone publish e-mails that were intended to be private! That's utterly utterly inexcusable.

Unless, of course, you're Charles Johnson. Then, it's perfectly fine to do as long as you're slamming a right-wing blogger.

(I've learned my lesson; I've saved copies of that page both as HTML and PDF. Charles has a habit of making embarrassing things disappear from his site.)