The New York Times' perspective might be this: if we don't give the Taliban the press it wants, then we'll have more leverage when it comes to getting him out. Furthermore, maybe all this kidnapping stuff will stop once they see there's no news.
But this was the New York Times' second kidnapping in under a year. Kidnapping of a journo is one of those those events that fills in the image of how dangerous the situation in Afghanistan really is: everyone there is fair game. The Taliban had to have known that this might warrant a rescue effort, and one can bet that they weren't going to let someone get away by scaling a wall again. This wasn't going to end neatly.
Which brings me to the New York Times' probable second thought: Some news outlets are far less worthy of trust, and once they find out (Blogcritics included), public hysteria will ensue. There will be more rumors in the push for more information and everything will get botched.
But then... bad things happened anyway. The Brits stepped in when their sources signaled the situation was worsening. The net result was one British soldier, a highly valued Afghan national who worked with news outlets for years as an interpreter, along with another Afghan were killed. Net result: one New York Times journo saved, three others lost. And this was with almost a complete news outlet blackout.
So, this begs the question: Is the kidnapping of a journo newsworthy? (Yes, it is). But when does the conventional wisdom touted by the Times start to wear thin? Did Roggio (as he was accused by some bloggers) endanger the life of Farrell? (I don't think so. Things were going downhill quickly all on their own). Should the New York Times expect that everyone in the blogosphere will bend to their request to suppress news?
I'm going to ask a few journos — including one who has won a Pulitzer Prize — to see what they think of this. It'll be interesting to hear the responses.
Thanks to Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive for the loop.
* That's my word, dammit.
Article comments
1 - Ruvy
Nice article, Kanani; nice job. The old strategies are not working because the old media are going down the tubes. Nobody respects the NYT anymore. No one should. They are not a paper of record anymore - they are just another rag losing money in a business undergoing real change.
2 - Kanani
Well, even I grapple with how much information to share.
3 - Baronius
This is a toughie. If the NYT were a person, I'd be tempted to throw it to the wolves. It's endangered so many American military and intelligence personnel over the years that I'd have mixed feelings about its own endangerment.
But the NYT staff deserves all the protection it can get, and so do US troops and agents. We need to return to a 1940's approach in which the press doesn't report on things that would get Americans killed.
4 - roger nowosielski
Interesting presentation. Offhand, I would tend to agree with that first-stated reason, namely that "if we don't give the Taliban the press it wants, then we'll have more leverage when it comes to getting him out. Furthermore, maybe all this kidnapping stuff will stop once they see there's no news."
Why don't you want to except it at face value?
5 - Kanani
Yeah, it's a dilemma. In this case it proved that you were damned if you did, damned if you didn't. 3 human lives lost, 1 journo spared.
Trying to think though of the 1940's approach, which was very selective but also aided by the fact that there was no internet, and news was definitely controlled. I'm wondering --did this approach of only sharing some things later lead to other problems for Veterans not being able to share experiences, and latent signs of PTSD that for the most part went undiagnosed and unclaimed?
Like I said. It's a damning dilemma.
6 - Kanani
face value? what the news? or their policy? or Roggio's post? I just think some things deserve to be thought through. Because if I'm correct, I suspect that in the future the NYT isn't going to be deferred to by the blogosphere. Just my feeling. Not saying it's a good thing, it's just ...inevitable.
7 - roger nowosielski
Now, that is an interesting extrapolation. In this case (the vets case, that is), controlling information appears to have misfired. But the case of not giving Taliban the publicity they possibly desire stands, I think, on its own merits.
We can't go back to the '40s as you well know. It's a much more open society and it cuts into all areas - from military operations to the lives of the rich and famous. Besides, dirt sells.
So I think an exercise of judgment is in order, on a case by case basis.
8 - roger nowosielski
What I meant by "face value" is that sometimes people, and yes, even organizations, may act on honorable motives. We're all too ready in this day and age to treat everybody with suspicion. And it's not a good sign.
9 - Kanani
I have no doubt that they did a lot of brainstorming and had the best of intention. However, it's the argument used against Roggio's post (of only the event) that I'm wondering about.
10 - roger nowosielski
Just read Roggio's report, short and to the point. The only objectionable thing about it (from the NYT perspective) is the following:
"The media has not afforded the US military the courtesy of a news blackout when US troops have been captured in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Accusing them thus of double standard.
So what, in essence, was their argument against the story?
11 - Baronius
Kanani, you're right. Every possible solution has potential bad repercussions. The only comfort is that the Times and the Taliban will both be distant memories in 40 years.
12 - roger nowosielski
Interestingly, Baronius, you put them in the same category. Equally evil.
13 - Kanani
Well, I think Roggio did two things.
First, he reported that the event happened.
Then he went on and opinionated.
I haven't commented on his opinion, but what seemed to set everyone off was that he reported that Farrell had been kidnapped.
His opinion points to the awful footage of the dying Marine, and how the media ran with this story without regard to the Marine's family.
14 - roger nowosielski
Right, the double standard thing. So in this respect, he may have a point.
15 - Baronius
Did I, Roger?
16 - roger nowosielski
"The only comfort is that the Times and the Taliban will both be distant memories in 40 years."
How else am I to read this?
17 - Ruvy
the NYT staff deserves all the protection it can get, and so do US troops and agents. We need to return to a 1940's approach in which the press doesn't report on things that would get Americans killed.
Going back to those standards also means going back to an era when the NYT actually sold papers and had real revenue. Now, it's anything for a buck.
I'm reminded of a Jerusalem Post story some years ago about a woman kvelling about how her son in the army organized pizzas to be sent to soldiers on duty in Hebron. The kid's name and picture were posted and everything. Two weeks later, there was a terrorist attack in Hebron. Guess who had been targeted?
"The only comfort is that the Times and the Taliban will both be distant memories in 40 years."
It's always a pleasure to read a pleasant prophecy here.
18 - Baronius
Roger, I certainly wasn't trying to show respect for the NYT, but I wasn't claiming moral equivalence either. For the record: the Times is a newspaper whose occasional bad judgement and obsolete technology will be its demise. The Taliban is a fanatical sect that will disappear through direct combat, attrition, and loss of popular support.
19 - kanani
Always appreciate all the conversation whenever I post.
20 - zingzing
ruvy: "It's always a pleasure to read a pleasant prophecy here."
ruvy, and his philosophy of war and death will (like a jar of salad dressing,) expire, eventually, happily, one hopes, but thankfully.
amen.
21 - Ruvy
I expect to expire, happily or not, before 40 years is up - though I hope to be healthy enough for it to be worth being alive when I'm 98 (40 years from now) - but whenever I expire, I'd like to see a couple of things before I do: sons happily married, grandchildren, and the end of the Taliban as the Pashtun return to the Pashtunwali - and finally Torah. If I'm privileged to see the Temple finally arise in Jerusalem, I'll count myself blessed.
22 - Baronius
Ruvy, you fascinate me. I know that you see a blood connection with the Taliban, but you're not typically a second-chances kind of guy with your enemies. I mean, you want Israel's leadership strung up, but you're willing to let bygones be bygones with some of the worst oppressors in the Muslim world? You reject secular Jews, despite the bloodline, but you accept people who see you as pigs and dogs?
23 - Ruvy
you want Israel's leadership strung up, but you're willing to let bygones be bygones with some of the worst oppressors in the Muslim world? You reject secular Jews, despite the bloodline, but you accept people who see you as pigs and dogs?
Baronius,
The trouble with being a believing Jew is that you have to actually believe. It is the Pashtun who are being referred to in YeHezkel/Eziekiel 37:19-28. Read it - carefully.
The specific groups referred to are "Joseph" and "Ephraim". Among the Pashtun are the Yusefzai - tribe of Joseph - and the Afridi - tribe of Ephraim. The ideas of the Taliban are mere decades old, as opposed to the Pashtunwali - the traditional law of the Pashtun followed for over two millennia - a traditional law that is clearly Torah based, the law that these people followed when they lived right around where I live now.
The secular pigs and hypocrites who r(u)in Israel are already violating the Torah AND committing treason by the civil law of the State. They can hang by the neck. They have proven bothe their treason and their apostasy.
But the Taliban can be stabbed in the back by Pashtun themselves - and destroyed. It's not a matter of "letting bygones be bygones", it is a matter of allowing Divine Prophecy to operate.
What ever the Pashtun in Afghanistan, Pakistan or India think of us, they pose no threat to us at all here in Israel. But the secular pigs like Netanyahu, Barak, and Peres do.