Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS.
So early this morning, a New York Times reporter taken captive in Afghanistan was freed by ISAF commandos. (His interpreter, Sultan Munadi, was killed in the rescue attempt, as was what was likely a member of the 22 SAS. Correction: the soldier appears to have been a member of the special operations support unit [1 PARA]. Sorry.) For what I thought to be understandable reasons, the Times kept quiet about the kidnapping.
Until now, the kidnapping had been kept quiet by The Times and most other news media organizations out of concern for the men’s safety.
“We feared that media attention would raise the temperature and increase the risk to the captives,” said Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times. “We’re overjoyed that Steve is free, but deeply saddened that his freedom came at such a cost. We are doing all we can to learn the details of what happened. Our hearts go out to Sultan’s family and to the family of the British commando who gave his life in the rescue.”
The rescue of Mr. Farrell came about 11 weeks after David Rohde, another reporter for The Times, escaped and made his way to freedom after more than seven months of captivity in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In that case as well, The Times and other news organizations kept Mr. Rohde’s kidnapping silent out of fear for his safety. An Afghan journalist colleague who was kidnapped along with Mr. Rohde, Tahir Ludin, also escaped, but their captured driver did not.
Last weekend, a military blogger I know posted an item on the reporter's kidnapping. Thinking this would be a relatively easy request, I emailed the blogger in question and cheerfully asked him to take the post down for much of the same logic articulated above by Bill Keller. The blogger refused, and then got quite angry with me, accusing me of arrogance -- which, let's be honest, is a little like accusing an orange of being round -- and a patronizing tone. His counter-logic to Keller's was as follows:
I happen to agree with Tom Ricks and others that the AP's decision to display that that picture was reprehensible. How that then justifies some kind of tit-for-tat retribution, though, is beyond me. The other two objections are something else. Personally, I still consider the blogger's decision to leave his post up on his website to have been at best foolish and at worst morally irresponsible. And I addressed the first point in another equally poorly-received email. But that's my opinion -- what do you think? Should bloggers or the media refrain from reporting these kinds of kidnappings? Do bloggers have any responsibility here?
No.
I wouldn't expect a coward who never served to understand.
The lack of concern over NYT's leaking is astounding. Says a lot about your patriotism. Which I am calling into question.
8109 Crestmont Circle
Springfield, VA 22153
Come visit if you have a problem with that.
We get it, we get it. You're macho. A man's man. But one quick question: After you beat me up, are you going to take my lunch money?
Does anybody think that if it was an American soldier that was captured the media would have the same consideration? Hell no! They don't give a thought to publishing that kind of thing. Remember the insistence on covering returning war dead? Exposing classified programs? Since when has the media had any consideration for the safety of US troops being held captive? Stinking punks...
Classic case of New York Times do as I say not as I do. Release classified or sensitive information and demand silence when it concerns one of their own. Go on and on about union busting and then try to break the union at the Boston Globe and so on. The Times is run by hypocrites who let their editorial bias seep into their news coverage.. The blogger is wrong for publishing the kidnapping information, the AP is wrong for publishing the picture of the Lance Cpl. and the Times is wrong when it publishes classified or sensitive information. Not everything is immediate news.
"I do condone summary executions for treason."
I think you managed to advocate a violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution (leaving aside all that annoying pinko First Amendment stuff), as well as a violation of § 813. Art. 13 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Impressive stuff.
Quit talkin' that Constitution nonsense, RB! He'll beat your ass!
I got it: "This career security manager" = DC Dept of Corrections guard at Lorton, ~ 2mi from above address.
Actually I meant Fifth and Sixth Amendments *lol* What can I say? It's not my constitution ;)
No, I'm not a corrections guard, I'm an SSO...and I'm offended by the cavalier attitude towards leaks. As if it's the mlilitary's fault, or DIA or CIA's fault. It's not. The papers are at fault, and they should pay for it.
I'm all for blind justice. Lets put NYT in the dock, and while we're at it, Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Addington go up on war crimes charges.
Taking liberties: 'I happen to DIS-agree with Tom Ricks and only a FEW others (not even Stars and Stripes agree with either of you) that the AP's decision to display that that picture was reprehensible. How that then justifies some kind of tit-for-tat retribution, though, is beyond me.'
Comparing the picture of the Lance Corporal and directly endangering someone thought to be acutely and immediately in danger is 'beyond me', and is like comparing apples to 'oranges'. However I agree fully with the second sentence.
FWIW, PhotoBucket thought I had violated their TOS with the graphic image of Bernard and ppulled the pic down, along with a pic of a particularly UGLY merc butt-kissing episode at ArmorGroup's Kabul bacchanal, but they didn't think this:
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee241/photobastard/talafargirl.jpg ...was a violation.
Why no photos of the rescue? I smell a conspiracy! I have a right to see!!!
Unless of course the blogger was trying to get the journo killed, hating the media as he does and all.
Its a big day for this blog. Ex declares it time to cut to cord in Afghanistan, and we see our first BDSM dating ad.
FORAC I'd love to come round and see you some time, drink at the well of your manly love, but its an 18hr flight. However I've posted your address and preferences on Craigslist, and I'm sure you'll get some rough trade soon enough.
You naughty man.
I´m bad with acronyms. So I asked google via define:sso, and got the answer: Sanitary Sewer Overflow - unintentional discharges of raw sewage from municipal sanitary sewers.
Btw,I admit, this is unethical blogging.
It is an independent blogger's job to report what he knows, not to judge the ethical reality of the reporting. The fact is not many bloggers are really being paid for their efforts - if the blogger is being paid...the contracts he has signed will tell the tale... Now, as to the ethics of reporting kidnapping - it is morally reprehensible not to report kidnappings in full bright shiny lights. The NY Times logic here is B.S. in my estimation. The fact is, we are facing a group of terrorists who operate in Pirate fashion, kidnapping people and demanding ransom. The fact is, this terrorist enemy is anti-reason, anti-free thought, anti-press, anti-liberty, pro-slavery, pro-infidel beheading. Sure, a backlash may exist, and the safety of the journalist or the captive may be in question...but the fact is, kidnapping is not a rational act...it is an act of pure barbarism. To deny the truth of this to a blogger audience or a newspaper audience is ethically and morally reprehensible. The news media must remain a free press in the United States of America, not a handringing group of know-it-all yuckety muqawamas who are so egocentric as to think what they are writing is actually being read by everyone.
1. It's either news or it isn't. It's not the job of a blogger to protect the media or soldiers or anyone else, and this was news.
I think this is the crux of the problem. Who determines that’s reportable and what’s not? It’s not as if the information on this kidnapping wasn’t available elsewhere on the web (as noted by other posters), so what was the point of the request other than to set themselves up for a PR frenzy about hypocrisy? I’m not sure. As to what the job of a blogger is…I couldn’t say. But I don’t think vindictiveness is a trait that one would aspire to display so openly.
2. You cannot prove that a blog post is going to further endanger the life of the captive.
You can’t prove that it won’t. Who knows how things get recognized in this world? Maybe your post goes unnoticed. Maybe it goes viral and makes the subject of your post the most recognized name in the news for a few days. Now you’ve helped to elevate the value of a hostage. But again, this gets back to the first point, the information was already out there through other media outlets, so what’s the harm in posting it? It was not a state secret…
3. The press hardly respects soldiers in the same way. Just look at the AP and the way they broadcast the image of that dying Marine.
While I think the comparison of a live hostage in danger and the photo of a wounded hero is slightly disingenuous, I can see the correlation. At its base level, the AP asked the family for permission and they said no, but the AP published it anyway. They can’t really cry outrage when they ask others to not report something and it happens anyways. Don’t look at the subject matter, look at the idea behind it, and its pot calling the kettle black.
“Let me guess: you're prior Navy.” – Noted. Asshat.
"The lack of concern over NYT's leaking is astounding. "
Its not the NYT's fault for reporting what they're told. Its the fault of those who tell them classified information in the first place.
Should they refrain from writing about it? sure. But can we blame them for it? not really. After all, I'm fairly sure they're not read in to any programs, so the fact that they have info about them in the first place is the concern here, not that they report it.
So has no one ever heard the phrase "don't feed the trolls?"
For all the chest beating here, I still haven't read a specific answer to these questions:
"If it is ok for the NYT (or any news paper) to publish reports of the abduction of soldiers, relief works, tourists, etc, why is it not ok to publish reports of the abduction of an NYT reporter?"
Also:
"If it is not ok for a government to try to stifle a news report, why is it ok for the NYT to do so?"
Gulliver? Joshua Foust? Andrew? Various "Visitors"? The whole world is watching...
Note this conversation:
A: "If the press can figure out what you're up to, so can the enemy."
B: "Is the enemy embedded with coalition forces?"
Considering the number of ambushes that U.S. troops are getting into in Afghanistan, I'd say that is precisely right, which is why commanders keep their plans secret until the very last moment.
It's a difficult situation, right? The military wants to do nightime search-and-destroy missions in villages where they expect Taliban to be hiding out - but, according to news reports, such missions regularly are ambushed. The villagers do not like unannounced kick-down searches in their homes any more than you would, so they want warning. Those warnings may be passed on to Taliban. There may also be pro-Taliban spies working within the Afghan security forces, certainly a phenomenon in Vietnam.
It's not an easy situation, whatever it is - but the basic point is pretty valid. Hiding operations from the enemy means keeping troops and reporters in the dark about plans.
"If it is ok for the NYT (or any news paper) to publish reports of the abduction of soldiers, relief works, tourists, etc, why is it not ok to publish reports of the abduction of an NYT reporter?"
It's my impression that the press reports on other abductions as soon as they have credible evidence that they've taken place, which is to say 1) first-hand knowledge, 2) that it's being reported in a verifiable fashion by local media, or 3) the parent organization or sponsor of the abducted individual has come forward with the information, likely hoping for assistance. The New York Times, I'd imagine, is in direct contact with the military when something like this happens.
Of course, I never suggested that one of these things was "ok" and another was "not ok," I merely said that it seemed like the blogger's argument about the appropriateness of his actions was in some sense mean-spirited or vindictive.
"If it is not ok for a government to try to stifle a news report, why is it ok for the NYT to do so?"
Because there's a fundamental difference between a government "try[ing[ to stifle" something and a private media outlet doing the same thing. I would suggest that neither really made any effort to "stifle" anything in the instances discussed here (the LCpl Bernard photo and the Farrell abduction), but that each organization asked that other individuals or organizations behave in the way they thought was appropriate. No one's saying that what the blogger did was illegal, just that it was inadvisable, inappropriate, and irresponsible.
The New York Times is a private business. They can choose to report or not report whatever they like. Hell, they could pull all their reporters from South Asia if they wanted to, and stop reporting on the war if they thought people would keep buying ads and buying their papers. They determined that it was in the best interests of their staff member not to report his abduction, and they asked other media outlets to respect their judgment. Some did, and some didn't. (It's not even clear to me that this was a request, per se, but more a standard operating procedure.) If the military decided not to report on soldiers who were MIA, it would be a different question because of the government's requirement for openness and accountability to its citizens. The New York Times doesn't owe you anything.
So, now that this place is supervised, I´ll try to behave.
Q: What makes the abduction of a reporter different from that of a soldier, tourist, etc?
A: If you can get his editors into publicly fearing for his safety, you win the big pink bear from the raffle. Near-direct access to the public, which turns into a single living room full of worried relatives anxious for news.
Q: Why may a paper stifle news, but not the government?
A: First, we observe that governments, including those of NATO members, do stifle news. A single example where doing so is justified will refute the thesis that governments should never do this. g.d., above, gives one.
Of course, it is appropriate to be very cautious with influential news sources stifling information. What comes to mind are propaganda and state-controlled press. Therefore, withholding information is only acceptable for limited periods of time, imho. The NYT can run their story when the reporter is freed; or the military may announce an already running operation.
One more brief remark. The problem at hand has obvious tactical or strategical implications for the conduct of the war. Irresponsibility may serve the enemy in a broader sense, not only endangering persons.
Again, beware of accusing me to make the point for state-controlled public information. But unforced compromises for brief periods of time can and should be done in such, and other, situations.
Stop snivelling. The press protects its own because they have the power to do so. Its like a veteran thing. Is that so very shocking?
Is it shocking the New York Times would be that hypocritical?
Yeah! Yeah, it is.
I've nothing against brave journalists going into the line of fire in search of the truth but here in the UK I've heard journalists criticise the military for deciding to launch the rescue- 'He wouldn't have wanted that'. By the way the stringer, Sultan Munadi, was in much more danger than the journo (both recognised this at the time) and may have been relieved when he heard the rescuers. It seems that he was warned not to enter the area but I realise they must hear this all the time from the military and are right to be sceptical. Trusted locals at the scene may have the best advice and it seems they may have also warned him off.
I'm sure Mr Farrell is gutted and I feel for him, I'm sure he had good intentions but I still feel journos should try to consider possible unintended consequences and take on board any advice from different sources. That said journalsits cant be held to the same standards of risk assessment that, say, diplomats would use and my earlier post was probably a bit harsh, it's easy to judge from a distance. It was an important incident (70 civilian deaths) with a lot of confusion/ mis- info surrounding it, I'm sure he wasn't the only journalsit trying to get to the scene.
Regarding media black outs, there was one in place for months after the British IT expert and his guards were kidnapped from a ministry in Iraq and was pretty much self enforced by, at least, the UK media. As the months went by it was the familys that broke the silence as they judged it wouldnt make much difference as such little progress was being made to get them released. It's not just journalsits that benefit from these black outs, every case is different, experienced 'negotiators' should make the call and the media should comply.
Say after me "special forces support group" - why is this so difficult and why do I care so? Is it an extension of Americans shortening everyone's name?? ;o)
There are two levels here:
The first is whether the publishing of the information about this particular kidnapping would endanger the reporter in question. The author of this blog post and several commenters believe that by publishing that information the reporter's life was placed in more danger and are therefore upset with the blogger who posted it. But that belief is by no means sacrosanct --there are two potential problems with that belief (and therefore the anger and nastiness directed at the blogger) : (1) as pointed out by Mudville, this information was already out in several different forms that are open source and just as available to any nefariously-intentioned person as Bill's blog was and it had also been announced in Afghanistan as well, and (2) as Bill pointed out, there is very little evidence that posting about the kidnapping would further endanger the journalist beyond his already precarious state of being in the hands of the Taliban.
This is a fair conclusion to come to, and some of the nastiness directed at Bill Roggio because he came to this conclusion is unwarranted. You might come down differently, but his decision is certainly not an entirely unreasonable one.
The second level is, given that there is always SOME risk that the publishing might endanger the journalist, why not just not publish, or take the info down when asked nicely?
(And equally for the commenters who say - well we can't know if it will endanger him or not): The NYT, every day likely, makes decisions just like the blogger, weighing whether or not the information they are about to publish, BY THEIR OWN ASSESSMENT, will (a) endanger someone's life, and (b) whether that risk is outweighed by the overarching journalist's goal to get any and all news out to the public.
The blogger makes the point that the NYT has not in the past treated the kidnappings of anyone else but their own journalists with a similar blanket of silence, and several commenters provide links to NYT stories on other kidnappings still in progress. Therefore we know that the NYT, in assessing the kidnappings of military personnel, Afghan civilians, foreign NGOs, etc., has decided that the public's need to know this news outweighs any potential risk to those kidnapped individuals.
The obvious question then for Abu Muqawama and Josh Foust and others on this site who are angry/upset with Bill Roggio is this: If the NYT feels that publishing information about people who are victims of kidnappings in progress outweighs the risk posed to those people from that publication, why should anyone -- blogger, journalist, talk show host, man on the street -- cow to the will of Bill Keller editor of the NYT simply because the life at risk is no longer a faceless distant one for him, but is now someone on his payroll, or someone he might have a personal connection with?
The answer is -- there is NO reason. None at all, especially if one is endeavoring to do actual reporting on one's blog, as Roggio has been doing for a very long time.
Finally, the issue of the double-standards and hypocrisy of the NYT is an important one and not one to be easily dismissed. Yes, the NYT has some excellent reporters, some incredibly brave reporters and they deserve a tremendous amount of praise and credit for what they are doing and the sacrifices and risks they are taking to do their work. But their lives are no more important than a CIA officer out in the field, a military member, an Afghan military member, etc. etc. But the NYT editors have over and over and over again, chosen to publish AGAINST THE WISHES AND REQUESTS OF GOV'T officials information that has both directly endangered people in those categories, and also indirectly endangered them by taking away key tools that have been successful in the war on terror. They have intentionally played up every negative angle they can on the U.S. military (how many consecutive days was the Abu Ghraib scandal on the front page of the Times?) and nearly ignored the heroism of the military (how many front page articles on Medal of Honor winners in these wars? Silver Stars?) Bill Keller will get respect when he earns respect, and unfortunately he has long ago squandered what little he had to start with.
Add your comment