The New York Times:
Cables Show Delicate U.S. Dealings With Egypt's Leaders
WikiLeaks Cables Show Close U.S. Relationship With Egyptian President
That reminds me of something Times executive editor wrote in a forthcoming piece on WikiLeaks, where he explains the difference between The Newspaper of Record and the Guardian in handling theAfghanistan documents:
If anyone doubted that the three publications operated independently, the articles we posted that day made it clear that we followed our separate muses. The Guardian, which is an openly left-leaning newspaper, used the first War Logs to emphasize civilian casualties in Afghanistan, claiming the documents disclosed that coalition forces killed "hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents," underscoring the cost of what the paper called a "failing war." Our reporters studied the same material but determined that all the major episodes of civilian deaths we found in the War Logs had been reported in the Times, many of them on the front page.
They are indeed different newspapers. The Guardian thinks civilian deaths should be reported, in some cases maybe more than once.
The Guardian's piece today reports:
Another cable, from March 2009, shows the U.S.'s astonishingly intimate military relationship with Egypt. Washington provides Cairo $1.3bn annually in foreign military finance (FMF) to purchase U.S. weapons and defence equipment, and the cable said. "President Mubarak and military leaders view our military assistance program as the cornerstone of our mil-mil relationship and consider the $1.3bn in annual FMF as 'untouchable compensation' for making and maintaining peace with Israel.
"The tangible benefits to our mil-mil relationship are clear: Egypt remains at peace with Israel, and the U.S. military enjoys priority access to the Suez canal and Egyptian airspace."
PresumablyKeller wouldargue that the Times has already–somewhere, at some time–mentioned U.S. military aid to Egypt, and thus didn't need to dwell on it today.