The Public Has a Right to Know

Tucker Carlson, on why he is refusing to release the entire text of the e-mails he is excerpting:

The second line of attack we’ve encountered since we began the series is familiar to anyone who has ever published a piece whose subject didn’t like the finished product: “You quoted me out of context!”

The short answer is, no we didn’t. I edited the first four stories myself, and I can say that our reporter Jonathan Strong is as meticulous and fair as anyone I have worked with.

That assurance won’t stop the attacks, of course. So why don’t we publish whatever portions of the Journolist archive we have and end the debate? Because a lot of them have no obvious news value, for one thing.

[snip]

Plus, a lot of the material on Journolist is actually pretty banal. In addition to being partisan hacks, a lot of these guys turn out to be pedestrian thinkers. Disappointing.

Okay, so most of it is "pretty banal" and has "no obvious news value". However, some of the e-mails are obviously interesting enough, with enough "obvious news value", to excerpt on The Daily Caller. If they pass this test, why won't he release the entire e-mail? Are only the excerpts newsworthy and interesting?

However, Carlson does make a valid point when he says:

Anyone on Journolist who claims we quoted him “out of context” can reveal the context himself.

I guess for people in Washington, this is another game of "screw over the opposition", but I was under the impression that the point of journalism is to shine a light. Why, in a spat between two groups of reporters, is neither side willing to release the e-mails over which they are arguing?