Disclosing the locations of captured Americans
The New York Times (and other news organizations) may have some hard thinking to do about ethics standards. When an American soldier disappeared in Afghanistan Tuesday and fell presumably into militant hands, a wire report published yesterday in the Times detailed the whereabouts of the soldier when he disappeared.
Afghan Police Gen. Nabi Mullakheil said the soldier went missing in the Mullakheil area of eastern Paktika province, where there is an American base.
They published the details despite the military’s refusal to give the circumstantial details – and despite this comment from a military spokeswoman:
”We are not providing further details to protect the soldier’s well-being,” she said.
Details of such incidents are routinely held very tightly by the military as it works to retrieve a missing or captured soldier without giving away any information to captors.
Compare that to the Times‘ editors’ decision to withhold all information about their reporter David Rohde when he was captured by militants in Afghanistan – to protect his safety.
Until now, the kidnapping has been kept quiet by The Times and other media organizations out of concern for the men’s safety.
“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,” said Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times. “The kidnappers initially said as much. We decided to respect that advice, as we have in other kidnapping cases, and a number of other news organizations that learned of David’s plight have done the same. We are enormously grateful for their support.”




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top22 Comments to “Disclosing the locations of captured Americans”
There is a slight difference between the soldier and the reporter.
The former is a POW and latter a hostage, for one. Status does count.
In the latter, they abductors did not have a clear idea of who the person was, i.e. who he worked for etc. this diminished their bargaining ability. With a soldier, it’s pretty clear who and what you have. The status of soldier itself is enough.
Report comment to moderator
Harris is right, technically. More relevant, however, is the fact that journalists love other journalists and, to quote Bill Clinton, “loathe the military.” They can’t help it.
Report comment to moderator
The sooner the NY Times goes bankrupt, the better.
Report comment to moderator
As Americans, they are already “bankrupt.”
Report comment to moderator
What!? Don’t you think the militants know where they abducted this solder? This sounds like rather silly criticism.
Report comment to moderator
The New York Times (and other news organizations) may have some hard thinking to do about ethics standards.
Has hell frozen over yet?
Report comment to moderator
Not that I’m in agreement with Kwatson, but how does saying where the person was abducted help the captors?
Explain to me the mechanics of this scenario… How will “going public” help the captors and endanger the soldier (or reporter for that matter).
Report comment to moderator
The report is from AP not NYT. Once AP puts it out, any paper can publish it including my local Canadian papers. Why criticize the NYT when AP put out the info? Unless of course you don’t like the NYT
Report comment to moderator
“How will “going public” help the captors and endanger the soldier (or reporter for that matter).”
Publicity is the hard currency that buys leverage for the hostage takers.
Report comment to moderator
#7 Imagine a kidnapping in the United States. The FBI are on the trail. But then the press releases information about where the captors are. What do you think they will do? Obviously, they will immediately go deeper underground and stop using whatever means of communication that led to knowing their whereabouts.
Secondly, any information disclosing the precise location of military operations in a time of war borders on treason and endangers soldiers.
Report comment to moderator
#8 HRW Read it again. It said “and other news organizations”.
Report comment to moderator
Xion
The AP article notes in general terms where the soldier went missing not the current precise location.
Report comment to moderator
Xion
The AP is responsible for this article not the NYT or other media who merely picked it up from the news wire. The question remains why pick on NYT and not AP
Report comment to moderator
KWatson (#5):
Think logically.
Neither you nor I know all of the reasons why it is important NOT to release details. As you have stated, obviously the enemy/kidnappers know where the capture occurred, but there must be other information and details, the release of which further jeopardizes victim’s safety. The best course, if one really cares about the victim, is to follow the directions of those who really know what is going on and who are responsible for getting the soldier back alive, if at all possible. That’s the logical thing to do if one is at all concerned about the soldier’s safety.
The important point here is that the NY Times refuses to cooperate with the military and thus disregards the safety of the soldier. They just don’t give a damn. On the other hand, when one of their people is in a similar situation, they do everything they can to cooperate and work for the safe return of their employee.
This is by no means the first occurrence of the Times demonstrating their hypocrisy and disdain for the safety of American soldiers. At other times they have deliberately published information compromising our intelligence operations and endangering the lives of both Americans and foreign nationals.
The financial troubles of the Times is a well known fact, and many believe that it is partly due to their diminishing reader base. Are people abandoning the Times because of their increasingly anti-American posture? I sure hope so.
As I said before, the sooner this morally bankrupt newspaper goes out of business, the better.
Report comment to moderator
#12 HRW The question remains why pick on NYT and not AP
The answer is very simple: because the NYT published it!! The AP simply made the story available, but the NYT made it widely available to the public.
Are you saying that the NYT has no responsibility whatsoever for anything they publish as long as they didn’t write it?
Report comment to moderator
I think the whole question is why is it okay to publish a report about a soldier being captured but not a reporter? It is a double standard and it has nothing to do with reporting where he was captured. It has to do with the fact that the NYT, AP and other publications take great delight in reporting anything bad happening to American soldiers but when it comes to their own, they close ranks. I think it is because they don’t see soldiers as “their” own even though the soldiers are the reason that reporters are able to be free enough to report.
Report comment to moderator
detailed the whereabouts of the soldier when he disappeared
Since the Afghan Police are talking about it and apparently involved, the disclosure of the “Mullakheil area” hardly seems to be much of a secret — or very much detail.
All of the information in the AP story was sourced to the named spokeswoman and to “two U.S. defense sources” (whose information must have confirmed the “whereabouts” of the disappearance).
The AP does not report that the military requested embargo.
Since the AP had the story, the NYTimes had no power to keep it a secret. The military should not get to have the whole say over the difference between safety and embarrassment. Let’s criticize the NYTimes for its real failings.
Report comment to moderator
Again it seems that liberals enjoy it if soldiers are captured. They are the ones defending the NYT. One has to wonder why the liberals are so morally bankrupct. Shame again on them.
Report comment to moderator
#16 Scroop. So why the different standards then between military personnel and a reporter?
Report comment to moderator
Monty #17, That’s some truly nasty slander you’re slinging there. You are by far one of the most over the top hateful commenters. I’m praying for you. It’s not your fault; you’re under the sway of all the right-wing hate-mongers that dominate conservatives’ preferred media outlets. The only way they gain legitimacy is by making the faithful believe that everything else they hear is a lie and evil. Conservatives apparently won’t be happy until everything is as rightwing as Fox. I know that would make you happy, but if it where to come to pass, we would be a much poorer, stupider, nation.
Report comment to moderator
Just in the interest of fairness, Monty, but who exactly did you have in mind with the following?
Again it seems that liberals enjoy it if soldiers are captured
That’s the kind of sloppy wording (and thinking) that I suspect you don’t tolerate elsewhere in your life.
Report comment to moderator
XION = You may know more about this than I, but it’s obvious that the NYTimes didn’t break the story about the soldier. They made public information available to their own readers, which is different. In the case of their kidnapped reporter, the NYTimes had the power to keep the secret.
Further, it’s easier to keep a reporter from becoming a high-stakes international incident than a soldier. A newspaper can abandon their asset. The US Military is powerless not to abandon its personnel.
You can’t infer from the spokeswoman’s reticence that the military was opposed to the AP story. Sometimes official sources are willing for unofficial sources to talk. If that was not the case, the AP would have told us that the military requested an embargo, and they decided to disregard it. Anyway, the Afghan police were talking and the AP might have determined that the name of the province was common knowledge. That information also could have come from defense sources. Maybe the AP had already been scooped by the Pakistani press, or Le Monde.
I don’t see a tort. I think y’all just picking a fight with the NYT
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!