A snitch in time saves hide — or does it?

Divulging the contents of private emails seems to have become all the rage in our little corner of the snarkosphere lately. It goes without saying that it’s an unethical practice, and very few Pure Poison readers will be surprised to learn that Tim Blair kicked it all off.

He did so by forwarding some correspondence he’d had with GrodsCorp and Pure Poison blogger Scott Bridges (concerning offensive paedophilic allusions) to net-stalker J.F. Dreck, who — like the dutiful lapdog he is — promptly published it in the form of a feeble “gotcha”.

Andrew Bolt yesterday reproduced part of that email exchange, joining Blair as the second high-profile Australian blogger willing to link a major newspaper’s website to a little-known creep in an attempt to smear a critic who’s lately been putting a few too many chinks in their glass jaws for comfort.

(Who would have dared dream we’d ever see two fiercely independent thinkers like Bolt and Blair singing from the same hymn sheet?)

Anyway, Blair today revealed the contents of yet another private email — this time on his own blog, without relying on an anonymous patsy to do his dirty work. Except, in an all-too-common display of intellectual dishonesty, he only revealed to his readers one carefully selected line from the correspondence.

The dispute, which began in a Bolt thread yesterday, concerned a derogatory comment (about bestiality) that was levelled at Blair in a GrodsCorp thread some time ago. Blogger John Surname asked Blair to provide a link to the comment in question, which he hadn’t been able to find and therefore didn’t believe existed.

Blair sent Surname an email, providing the link. Surname replied.

Blair takes up the story on his blog:

Surname subsequently wrote: 

I apologise heartily for my error and retract the statement. 

He hasn’t posted that anywhere. It was in an email. Surname, despite using a pseudonym, prefers to keep his shame private.

But here’s what Blair left out:

Thanks Tim,

I apologise heartily for my error and retract the statement.

Wah’s comment was out-of-line, and denounced instantly. But would you have found it funnier if Wah had suggested you have sex with goats instead of dogs? How is Wah’s comment any more offensive than the comments in your thread? And do you endorse them?

Just so we’re clear. We can’t have you complaining about being the butt of bestiality jokes when you’ve encouraged such comments at your blog. That would be hypocritical.

Regards,
John

Now, tell me: why might Blair have neglected to quote more than just one line of an email his readers — ever-eager to believe the best about him — were unable to access and judge for themselves? 

Seems Surname isn’t the only blogger who “prefers to keep his shame private”.

More importantly, Surname has since posted his retraction online, along with the rest of the correspondence Blair elected to keep hidden from his readers. No updates as yet from the usually update-happy Blair.

Meanwhile, a comment I left on Blair’s blog alerting him and his readers to this has been languishing in the moderation queue since 9.10am. Surprise, surprise: no fewer than seven sycophantic comments from the usual suspects have been published in that time.

Distortions facilitated by cherry-picking, as commonly practised by Bolt, open you up to charges of hypocrisy at the best of times when you purport to be some kind of arbiter of truth, transparency and decency. But when you’re quoting from a source no one else can view, you need to provide more than just an extract that paints you in a vindicated or victorious light if you expect your bleating be taken seriously.