The New York Times once came underscrutiny for allegedly engaging in "institutional hypocrisy" about which private data it decides to make public – by refusing to post hacked emails that cast doubt on scientists' pro-global warming arguments.



The conservative Media research Center's Newsbusters noted in 2009 that Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin, whose article cast global warming scientists in a bad light, argued later in a blog post, hacked documents from Britain's East Anglia University "appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won't be posted here."

Newsbusters at the time charged the blogpost explanation "displayed institutional hypocrisy," pointing to a Weekly Standard commentary, noting the Times had no such reservations about publishing classified information on drone strikes or intelligence agency activities that might endanger troops or intelligence programs.

The issue could surface again with the publication Sunday by the Times of 1995 tax returns data of GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, showing he took a nearly $1 billion legal tax write-off for failing businesses that could mean he avoided paying Uncle Sam for up to 18 years.

The Trump campaign has already characterized the data was "illegally obtained."