The Times inconsistency on kidnapping coverage
posted at 11:36 am on June 22, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Over the weekend, I explained my decision to stay quiet about the kidnapping of the New York Times’ David Rohde when I first learned about it in March. The Times asked me to refrain from publishing it in order to keep from endangering Rohde, which I agreed could risk his life by giving the Taliban kidnappers exactly what they wanted — an audience. I’m happy with my decision, but Marc Danziger at Winds of Change points out that the Times themselves don’t stick to that policy when someone other than a NYT reporter gets abducted:
Do a NY Times search for “kidnapped Afghanistan” and you’ll find this January 2008 story about an American woman and her driver who’d just been kidnapped, this September 2008 story about an Afghan official who was kidnapped in Pakistan, a November 2008 story about a French aid worker who was kidnapped in Kabul.
Now that doesn’t mean they cover every kidnapping -just that they cover some.
And that’s not to mention the national security stories they happily and proudly ran (the Swift program, a perfectly legal program for tracking international financial transactions which they uncovered, among others).
I mentioned the hypocrisy of the Times regarding national-security programs they’ve exposed that certainly puts Americans at greater risk as we negate effective tools to prevent terrorist attacks. The Swift program story, in particular, should be condemned. Even in their exposé, the Times acknowledged that the program broke no laws and had caught at least one major al-Qaeda terrorist. Their defense? Despite their promotion of the story as a major scoop, Bill Keller claimed that the story really broke no new ground and AQ already knew how we were attacking their cash flow. So why run the story, if it broke no laws and had — in the NYT’s estimation — already been compromised?
Rohde was abducted in November 2008, at about the same time as the last story Danziger cites. One could make an argument that they learned a lesson from Rohde’s capture and started exercising more discretion about publicizing kidnappings. However, their own archives betray their hypocrisy yet again:
- February 3, 2009 – American UN official kidnapped in Pakistan.
- November 14, 2008 – Iranian official kidnapped in Pakistan.
- February 10th, 2009 – Overview of Taliban kidnapping efforts in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
- March 6, 2009 – Review of specific kidnapping cases in Pakistan.
If the main issue in kidnappings is publicity, maybe the Times should have refrained from giving the terrorists that kind of visibility on all of the cases, and not just the one that involved its own reporter.
Update: JD Johannes has darker thoughts on this subject.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Ed, do you really expect the folks at the NYT to have the same integrity that you have?
I don’t.
ladyingray on June 22, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Thanks for re-visiting this. On Saturday I thought that there was a chance that the NYTimes would change some of their damaging policies in light of what they had been through.
Now I see that they haven’t and they won’t.
myrenovations on June 22, 2009 at 11:41 AM
Ed, I presume that you have a query in with the Times about this? You have enough muscle to muscle out an answer.
BJ* on June 22, 2009 at 11:41 AM
there simply a tool for the left,same philosophy…
SHARPTOOTH on June 22, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Kidnapping publicity for thee, but not for me.
LibTired on June 22, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Can I be the first on the record to say that this “kidnapping” story smells? I don’t believe it – not when AP and Reuters photographers and reporters are embedded with the enemy, taking staged pics of terrorists.
I doubt he was kidnapped.
There, NYT, I said it.
Claudin on June 22, 2009 at 11:47 AM
To try to help boost their top line by selling more newspapers. Quite consistent I must say for a statists organ. Greed over principles for them and for the statist policies they advocate.
WashJeff on June 22, 2009 at 11:49 AM
excellent post…..the hypocracy is astounding…..and ugly
marktarheel on June 22, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Considering some of the past history of their writers I hope you will excuse some cynicism. Especially since the driver kidnapped with him decided to join the Taliban. Time will tell about this story. You still did the correct thing Ed and the Times seldom does.
Cindy Munford on June 22, 2009 at 11:52 AM
It’ll be about a week or two before NYT’s returns to treasonous endangerment of our troops.
THE CHOSEN ONE on June 22, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Anyone remember the CBS reporter that was kidnapped in Iraq and remarked afterward that he was glad he had not been taken by the U.S. military?
—————————–
Butler said he felt it was better to be kidnapped in Iraq then taken into custody by Americans in Afghanistan.
“I was pleased I wasn’t being mortarboarded in Guantanamo or being held for six and a half years like an Al-Jazeera cameraman, for instance,” he said.
—————————–
LibTired on June 22, 2009 at 11:57 AM
The Gray Lady is in a permanent sleep…a sad suicide.
d1carter on June 22, 2009 at 11:57 AM
The Grey lady is now the Grey Floosie, selling it to Obama and the left. The “die” is cast because they can never take this shameful action back.
saiga on June 22, 2009 at 12:04 PM
It is a distinct possibility that the NYT or its reporter invented the “kidnapping”, as a cover for having been embedded with the enemy for months. If that seems uncharitable… well, that’s what happens when you make a habit of distorting the truth for political purposes – you lose credibility.
drunyan8315 on June 22, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Can’t believe I’m the first to say this: some pigs are more equal than others.
And FTR, I, too, find this “kidnapping” story to be a wee bit suspicious. It’ll make a great book for the guy, though. Fiction, of course.
Rational Thought on June 22, 2009 at 12:08 PM
NYTimes: The Paper of Hypocrisy
rbj on June 22, 2009 at 12:08 PM
+1
Caper29 on June 22, 2009 at 12:10 PM
NYTimes having a double standard? Duh!
The best part of this story is the continued denials of the Taliban that they even kidnapped him to begin with.
patrick neid on June 22, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Thanks for telling this to us, Ed. But are the people who kept this quiet for the NYTs now telling them how unhappy they are with their policies? Are you?
I’ve said this elsewhere, but I wonder what journalists think about the fact that a Pulitizer-prize winner disappeared for 7 months, and the public barely noticed.
MayBee on June 22, 2009 at 12:15 PM
And yet this hypocritical litter box lining dredge, is still afloat.
capejasmine on June 22, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Ed, do you really expect the folks at the NYT to have
the sameintegritythat you have?FIFY
mchristian on June 22, 2009 at 12:44 PM
The NYT doesn’t care about America, they care about the NYT and those who share the NYT’s worldview. They would prefer America take a backseat to the rest of the world. God knows why, but they would.
holygoat on June 22, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Not really, Ed. The Times put the kabache on reporting on its reporter’s kidnapper because the people hired to get him out made a request to do so. You don’t know that the families involved in those other cases asked for the story to be kept quiet. Perhaps those families preferred disclosure, whether because of differing circumstances or differing judgments as to the pro’s and con’s of disclosure.
The hypocrisy arises when the Times grants secrecy requests based on “security concerns” when it suits them (e.g. in its reporter’s case) but deny secrecy requests based on security concerns in other cases when it does not (e.g. SWIFT, warrantless wiretapping).
Outlander on June 22, 2009 at 12:53 PM
A better writer and researcher than me needs to do an analysis of all the stories the NYT has published and how they hurt the USA. Then compare it to how they act when they have a personal stake in a story.
Although it’s pointless, they would never get it.
redshirt on June 22, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Claude Rains could not be reached for comment. Too busy spinning im his grave.
Del Dolemonte on June 22, 2009 at 12:57 PM
The Gray Lady died a long time ago…now it looks more like Janeane Garofalo…a wizened hag.
PatriotPete on June 22, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Two things don’t add up:
1. No reason for NYT to keep info under wraps now – it might actually help someone avoid a kidnapping, or help a rescue effort.
2. Families usually are deathly afraid of their loved ones who are kidnapped being “forgotten” and try to do everything they can to keep their plight in the news.
Only context in which these things make sense is if NYT reporter was actually “embedded” with the Taliban to write a book, one in which he had promised to treat them sympathetically. The “kidnap” give the NYT cover, and the family knows that he is safe, so no media attention i sneeded. In fact his situation might become dangerous if the news got out and a more senior warlord decided that he should be used as a real hostage.
That’s my guess, and it explains the incongruencies in the story. The immorality of doing this is stunning.
drunyan8315 on June 22, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Comment pages: