Secret kidnap victim Rohde escapes from Taliban

[DamnYankee]

NYT's Rohde escapes from Taliban after being held for seven months
New York Times | Romenesko Memos

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/world/asia/21talibancnd.html?_r=1&hp

David Rohde, who was kidnapped outside of Kabul last November while researching a book, climbed over the wall of the compound where he was being held. He fled with another abducted reporter, Tahir Ludin; their driver did not escape. Until now, the kidnapping has been kept quiet by the Times and other media organizations out of concern for the men's safety. || "Joyous news": Read executive editor Bill Keller's memo about the escape and Nick Kristof's blog post.
> Keller says at least 40 news outlets knew of the abduction
'NYT' Editor: At Least 40 News Outlets Knew of Reporter's Kidnapping
Posted at 2:39 PM on Jun. 20, 2009

 

[William Joyce]

I met him once at a party, after he'd won the Pulitzer. Very quiet, very unassuming. And now we know... balls the size of planets.

 

[DamnYankee]

I met him once at a party, after he'd won the Pulitzer. Very quiet, very unassuming. And now we know... balls the size of planets.

I'll second that, but don't you find it the least bit interesting that the media reports what they feel you have the right to know and omit what they feel you do not have the right to know? Who's freedom trumps whose? When it's convenient for the media, they want freedom of the press. When it isn't, the public's right to know is ignored and freedom of the press is freedom for secrecy.

 

[William Joyce]

I met him once at a party, after he'd won the Pulitzer. Very quiet, very unassuming. And now we know... balls the size of planets.

I'll second that, but don't you find it the least bit interesting that the media reports what they feel you have the right to know and omit what they feel you do not have the right to know? Who's freedom trumps whose? When it's convenient for the media, they want freedom of the press. When it isn't, the public's right to know is ignored and freedom of the press is freedom for secrecy.

Irrefutable point.

A news story will kill troops? Run it.
A news story will kill a journalist? Censor it.

Not that journalism lacks for hypocrisies, biases and other bad habits.

 

[DamnYankee]

I met him once at a party, after he'd won the Pulitzer. Very quiet, very unassuming. And now we know... balls the size of planets.

I'll second that, but don't you find it the least bit interesting that the media reports what they feel you have the right to know and omit what they feel you do not have the right to know? Who's freedom trumps whose? When it's convenient for the media, they want freedom of the press. When it isn't, the public's right to know is ignored and freedom of the press is freedom for secrecy.

Irrefutable point.

A news story will kill troops? Run it.
A news story will kill a journalist? Censor it.

Not that journalism lacks for hypocrisies, biases and other bad habits.

Keller says at least 40 news outlets knew of the abduction

Now, if at least 40 news outlets knew of the abduction of a child and kept it secret, for the safety of the child of course, wouldn't we be screaming that the greater good would be that disclosure would be more valuable in order to locate the child?

 

[Meister]

I met him once at a party, after he'd won the Pulitzer. Very quiet, very unassuming. And now we know... balls the size of planets.

I'll second that, but don't you find it the least bit interesting that the media reports what they feel you have the right to know and omit what they feel you do not have the right to know? Who's freedom trumps whose? When it's convenient for the media, they want freedom of the press. When it isn't, the public's right to know is ignored and freedom of the press is freedom for secrecy.

Irrefutable point.

A news story will kill troops? Run it.
A news story will kill a journalist? Censor it.

Not that journalism lacks for hypocrisies, biases and other bad habits.

Your right on this statement. The New York Times was leaking classified information under the Bush administration without hesitation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/29/washington/29leak.html?_r=1

 

[garyd]

Dead on ladies and gentlemen.

 

[DamnYankee]

I'll second that, but don't you find it the least bit interesting that the media reports what they feel you have the right to know and omit what they feel you do not have the right to know? Who's freedom trumps whose? When it's convenient for the media, they want freedom of the press. When it isn't, the public's right to know is ignored and freedom of the press is freedom for secrecy.

Irrefutable point.

A news story will kill troops? Run it.
A news story will kill a journalist? Censor it.

Not that journalism lacks for hypocrisies, biases and other bad habits.

Your right on this statement. The New York Times was leaking classified information under the Bush administration without hesitation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/29/washington/29leak.html?_r=1

Leaks about secret counterterrorist programs, and the decision of The Times and other news media outlets to publish information on them, have been roundly denounced by President Bush and other administration officials. Some civil libertarians have defended the leaks as acts of conscience on the part of federal workers trying to stop illegal or unethical government activities.

Mr. Tice said in a telephone interview on Friday that he believed that the leak investigation and subpoena were designed to discourage whistle-blowers. “I feel this is an intimidation tactic aimed at me and anyone who’s considering dropping a dime on criminal activity by the government,” he said.

The American Civil Liberties Union denounced the subpoena as part of an effort to cover up government wrongdoing.

“Courageous federal employees like Mr. Tice who bring hidden truths to light, letting lawmakers and the American people know when official misconduct has occurred, perform a valuable public service,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the A.C.L.U.’s legislative office in Washington.

A Justice Department official, who would discuss the confidential criminal investigation only on condition of anonymity, said that the leak inquiry was in a preliminary investigative phase and that no journalist had been subpoenaed. The official said federal agents had interviewed officials at several intelligence agencies about their contacts with reporters at The Times and other news organizations.

Ahh yes.... Gotta love it when the alledged whistle-blower gets a subpoena (know something about that!) and the public entity responsible for broadcasting the information all across America does not!

 

[editec]

Hey! Good for him!

 

[Ravi]

Freedom of the press means the government cannot tell the press what to print.

A lot of people on this forum are none too bright, I see.

Good for him for escaping and for his employer for being concerned about his safety.

 

[DamnYankee]

Freedom of the press means the government cannot tell the press what to print.

A lot of people on this forum are none too bright, I see.

Good for him for escaping and for his employer for being concerned about his safety.

Speaking of none too bright.... Perhaps you could point out who said (and where) that the GOVERNMENT should tell the press what to print. Take your time.

 

[Ravi]

Why you did, you red-fonted hysteric, when you trotted out the phrase freedom of the press. This story has no violation of freedom of the press.

Nice job on using this guy as a political tool.

 

[DamnYankee]

Why you did, you red-fonted hysteric, when you trotted out the phrase freedom of the press. This story has no violation of freedom of the press.

Nice job on using this guy as a political tool.

And the implication that GOVERNMENT should force them to print?

I don't suppose it ever occured to you that WE THE PEOPLE should force them to print, since it's OUR RIGHT TO KNOW.

 

[Ravi]

There is no right to know that this man was kidnapped. If the government had been withholding the information, you might have a case.

 

[Gunny]

I met him once at a party, after he'd won the Pulitzer. Very quiet, very unassuming. And now we know... balls the size of planets.

I'll second that, but don't you find it the least bit interesting that the media reports what they feel you have the right to know and omit what they feel you do not have the right to know? Who's freedom trumps whose? When it's convenient for the media, they want freedom of the press. When it isn't, the public's right to know is ignored and freedom of the press is freedom for secrecy.

I think in this case, the potential threat to the hostages trumps your "right" to be informed. I seriously doubt keeping this under wraps was due solely to the media. I'd put money on some government pressure to keep the lid on.

 

[Gunny]

I'll second that, but don't you find it the least bit interesting that the media reports what they feel you have the right to know and omit what they feel you do not have the right to know? Who's freedom trumps whose? When it's convenient for the media, they want freedom of the press. When it isn't, the public's right to know is ignored and freedom of the press is freedom for secrecy.

Irrefutable point.

A news story will kill troops? Run it.
A news story will kill a journalist? Censor it.

Not that journalism lacks for hypocrisies, biases and other bad habits.

Keller says at least 40 news outlets knew of the abduction

Now, if at least 40 news outlets knew of the abduction of a child and kept it secret, for the safety of the child of course, wouldn't we be screaming that the greater good would be that disclosure would be more valuable in order to locate the child?

Not the same thing. A kidnapped child within the US is a completely different scenario than a kidnapped journalist in the Middle East.

I seriously doubt any Arabs are going to get all excited over an amber alert for a kidnapped Western journalist. We on the other hand, present the "there's no place to run to or hide" message because we as a society DO care about our children being kidnapped.

 

[Gunny]

Freedom of the press means the government cannot tell the press what to print.

A lot of people on this forum are none too bright, I see.

Good for him for escaping and for his employer for being concerned about his safety.

Here you are calling "a lot of people on this forum" none to bright while battling a strawman.

Gotta love it.

 

[Gunny]

Why you did, you red-fonted hysteric, when you trotted out the phrase freedom of the press. This story has no violation of freedom of the press.

Nice job on using this guy as a political tool.

And the implication that GOVERNMENT should force them to print?

I don't suppose it ever occured to you that WE THE PEOPLE should force them to print, since it's OUR RIGHT TO KNOW.

You have no right to be informed though. And again, when your "right to know" could endanger the lives of others, your "right" is superceded by necessity, IMO.

 

[Gunny]

There is no right to know that this man was kidnapped. If the government had been withholding the information, you might have a case.

There is no "withholding information" by not printing a story. The media discards 10 times the amount of stuff it actually presents to the public.

 

[garyd]

Yet the point of all this is the reality that our right to know is utterly dependent on what the News media wants us to know.