Patterico's Pontifications

6/23/2009

Media Quote of the Day

Filed under: Media Bias — DRJ @ 2:39 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Today’s quote is from Kelly McBride, a journalism ethics teacher at the Poynter Institute, as she responded to the revelation that the New York Times and 39 other media organizations conspired to prevent reports about the kidnapping in Afghanistan of Times‘ reporter David Rohde:

“I find it a little disturbing, because it makes me wonder what else 40 international news organizations have agreed not to tell the public.”

The New York Times explained its decision after Rohde’s escape:

“From the early days of this ordeal, the prevailing view among David’s family, experts in kidnapping cases, officials of several governments and others we consulted was that going public could increase the danger to David and the other hostages. The kidnappers initially said as much.”

I’m happy for Rohde and his family, and it’s commendable that the New York Times wants to protect its employees. What a shame that the Times didn’t feel the same concern for the American people when it published the details of the secret CIA-Treasury program that tracked financial records in search of terrorist suspects.

— DRJ

32 Responses to “Media Quote of the Day”

  1. Wasn’t it the Times or one of it’s collaborators in this that named AND pictured the consultants that the CIA went with for the enhanced interrogation techniques after being pleaded with not to do so for their personal safety?

    Also wasn’t it the Times or one of it’s collaborators in this that named an actual interrogator who explicitly begged for secrecy because he and/or his family would be put at risk because the Times named him?

    One set of rules for me, one set for thee?

    Say it ain’t so…

    MJN1957 (d1de05)

  2. I am not sure the Fourth Estate is really needed any longer.

    pitchforksntorches (4dd8c4)

  3. So let’s get this straight – Bush asks the NYT to please not release sensitive information that could jeopardize the lives of our soldiers in combat, yet they’re more than willing to engage in a conspiracy of silence in order to protect one of their own? They have no honor, they have no shame, they’re skirtingthisclose to traitorous behavior.

    Dmac (f7884d)

  4. Not since Colonel McCormack and the 1940s Chicago Tribune have we had such a disloyal press. At least Westbrook Pegler, the Trib’s chief Roosevelt hater, had a sense of humor. He once sent a Christmas card with his photo and Eleanor Roosevelt’s together wishing the recipient a Merry Christmas.

    The Tribune published the information that we had broken the Japanese code after Midway and published Roosevelt’s Rainbow Five war plan the week before Pearl Harbor. Fortunately, the Japanese did not read US newspapers.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  5. Some pigs are more equal than other pigs

    EricPWJohnson (59f7ef)

  6. Dmac, somehow your definition of “skirting” does not match mine …

    SPQR (72771e)

  7. =yawn= Gee, if memory serves, back in ’79, the Canadian Embassy in Tehran secretly hid American nationals who’d escaped when the U.S. Embassy was overrun. The press kept that nugget on the QT. For shame! And way back when, the press was made privy to details of several key military moves presented to them by Dwight Eisenhower, sharing the burden, with the caveat that they not release details risking American lives until after the operation was far along in progress. Of course the press’ supreme act of ‘disloyalty’ to America was not asking the hard questions and in many respects, unwittingly carrying the water for the Bush Administration in the run up to the Iraq War.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  8. That’s as dishonest as ever for you, DCSCA. The New York Times blew important secret intelligence operations that had no “hard questions”. They blew them for no reason other than to undermine the Bush administration. They blew them regardless of the cost of lives.

    Except for one of their own.

    Which shows to all of America that the NYT shares no interests with Americans.

    That you don’t get this surprises no one given your penchant for BDS and partisanship at all costs.

    SPQR (72771e)

  9. “Gee, if memory serves…”

    …when Bush was president people getting kidnapped by terrorists was front page news, now that Obama is president…it isn’t front page news.

    How surprising.

    Dave Surls (0a3f1e)

  10. “KANDAHAR, Afghanistan, — An American woman and her Afghan driver were kidnapped by gunmen in this southern town Saturday morning on her way to work, the provincial governor said.”

    “No one has claimed responsibility for the abduction, he said…”–New York Times, January 27, 2008

    She didn’t work for the NYT…and, Barack Obama hadn’t been elected president yet.

    Dave Surls (0a3f1e)

  11. Incredible hypocrisy from Keller on the double standard employed by the NYT when one of their own is in danger vs american citizens:

    “What I can tell you or what I’m willing to tell you, honestly, is very little. I mean, we’ve just made a decision that talking about who did what, who decided what, who advised what during this time simply contributes to the playbook of kidnappers.”

    and from the Howard Kurtz story on the non-story:

    There was “a pretty firm consensus that you really amp up the danger when you go public”, he [Keller] said. “It makes us cringe to sit on a news story,” but “the freedom to publish includes the freedom not to publish”.

    harkin (2e0d4b)

  12. “What a shame that the Times didn’t feel the same concern for the American people when it published the details of the secret CIA-Treasury program that tracked financial records in search of terrorist suspects.”

    Maybe they went…lets think of a single specific direct harmful act that everyone agrees will happen.

    imdw (4503b6)

  13. “She didn’t work for the NYT…and, Barack Obama hadn’t been elected president yet.”

    They’re also reporting on something ‘the provincial governor’ said. Cat’s out of the bag.

    imdw (eb5474)

  14. lets think of a single specific direct harmful act that everyone agrees will happen.

    Put away your copy of Minority Report and join us in the present.

    Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (bcc87c)

  15. imdw will do anything to deflect from the rampant and blatant hypocrisy of the NY Times.

    JD (3b62be)

  16. The NYT reported the Jan 2008 kidnapping of Sidney Misal without having the slightest idea whether or not reporting it would endanger her life. They didn’t even know who abducted her.

    As far as I can tell, she’s still missing…and the NYT doesn’t seem to care about that either.

    But, she isn’t a NYT reporter…so who cares?

    Dave Surls (0a3f1e)

  17. There is total consistency on the New York Times part…………..if they’re on the other side.

    EBJ (437cb7)

  18. “imdw will do anything to deflect from the rampant and blatant hypocrisy of the NY Times.”

    Deflect? I think they’re two different issues. Here they see the specific harm, all agreed on. In the other case, the harm is much more general.

    “The NYT reported the Jan 2008 kidnapping of Sidney Misal without having the slightest idea whether or not reporting it would endanger her life.”

    So there’s another difference. They didn’t have information that would lead them to believe it would harm her.

    imdw (ff3333)

  19. Remember when CNN admitted that they had suppressed information about just how bad Saddam’s regime was, in order to gain “access” to the country? They wanted to be able to report “from Iraq” even though their reports would be, essentially, a pack of lies.

    pst314 (dbf8fd)

  20. Double Standard, plain and simple, and “people” like DCSCA and imdw will defend and deflect for the NYT to their last keyboard stroke. What tools they are!

    The majority of the media are a dodgy lot of buggers to begin with, and their character, or lack thereof, gets worse from there. Goebbels would be proud of them all.

    PCD (02f8c1)

  21. “The majority of the media are a dodgy lot of buggers to begin with…”

    What was it that Ulysses S. Grant said about reporters?

    pst314 (672ba2)

  22. Complete and utter BS, imdw. The NYT published the name of the person who interrogated Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Despite being specifically asked not to. Your silly claim that they do not do things that might have “specific” harm versus general harm is so obviously stupid that it astonishes me you’d write it with a straight face.

    SPQR (72771e)

  23. Maybe that’s because the kidnapping was a private matter, and the CIA program is a PUBLIC matter.

    I find it ironic that the same people who argue for a smaller, less intrusive government because they don’t trust them are the same one who think you can trust the government to behave itself when it’s spying on all Americans.

    JEA (cfcb76)

  24. In the other case, the harm is much more general

    Is this an actual sentient human being commenting here, or just another Trollbot 1000?

    Dmac (f7884d)

  25. 8:29pm – They didn’t have information that would lead them to believe it would harm her.

    And of course they wouldn’t want to err on the side of caution. After all, it’s not one of their lives.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  26. JEA, another strawman dies to your mighty pen. Relish your victory oh, Conan of the Blogs!

    SPQR (72771e)

  27. Hmmm. Fox News reports South Carolina newspapers were aware of the Sanford affair for a few months but chose not to report it. The nerve!

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  28. “The NYT published the name of the person who interrogated Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Despite being specifically asked not to. Your silly claim that they do not do things that might have “specific” harm versus general harm is so obviously stupid that it astonishes me you’d write it with a straight face.”

    The harm here is much more specific: we have identified the threat as well as the victim. In the KSM case, we don’t have an identified or even confirmed threat. But fine, if you don’t think that that standard is enough, let’s just also add a requirement of imminence. That would be one standard that would work for all of these stories: identified, specific, imminent harm. No need for double standards.

    imdw (f41ee5)

  29. “What was it that Ulysses S. Grant said about reporters?”

    Beats me, but another Yankee general said:

    “I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast.”–W.T. Sherman

    Dave Surls (db4a2b)

  30. In the KSM case, we don’t have an identified or even confirmed threat.
    Comment by imdw — 6/24/2009 @ 3:15 pm

    Excuse me, but do you really need an imminent, confirmed threat to have concerns for the interrogator’s safety? That’s idiotic. There was no reason to publish the man’s name and several reasons not to. He’ll need to be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life because of fanatics, foreign and domestic… just for doing his lawful job in a lawful manner (to the best of his knowledge and in good faith). No matter what you think of interrogations, he doesn’t deserve that.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  31. “Excuse me, but do you really need an imminent, confirmed threat to have concerns for the interrogator’s safety?”

    I don’t propose that the standard be “concerns for safety.”

    imdw (490521)

  32. I don’t propose that the standard be “concerns for safety.”
    Comment by imdw — 6/24/2009 @ 9:01 pm

    Maybe it should be if the information is not essential to the story. Of course, it’s not your safety that’s being placed at risk by having your identity disclosed, so there’s that.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0999 secs.