What is Digg?Sponsored by Threadless
Tees as low as $10 view!
threadless.com - Threadless.com's Holiday Sale is full of awesomeness. Snag a deal on t-shirts this week with up to 20% off!
30 Comments
- walker4bc, on 06/21/2009, -2/+31Personally, this strikes me as a double standard. Why does the media not suppress stories about other kidnap victims if it is safer for the victim?
- pinkflyingpig, on 06/21/2009, -1/+20Who said it is impossible to herd cats?
- BigGooseX, on 06/21/2009, -1/+19It's the same reason that you'll never see a police officer get a traffic ticket. They protect their own above all else.
- xGORDOx, on 06/21/2009, -3/+20So the New York Times CAN keep secrets, who knew.
- offrdbandit, on 06/21/2009, -2/+15So this article is saying news organizations pick and choose which information to publish???
I'm shocked! - Lederhosed, on 06/21/2009, -1/+10Wow. I wonder if any other news organization besides the Times could pull this off.
- shrudheuie, on 06/21/2009, -1/+10Reporter gets kidnapped = respect the family and shut up to reduce the danger posed to the victim.
Citizen gets kidnapped = 24 hour updates, backgrounds, specials, opinion, speculation, does his head get cut off? lets show the tape, but not the last 10 seconds, then put that up on our website.
The problem is there are way to many reporters and not to many journalists left. The wellbeing of citizens so rarely enter the minds of reporters except in the most fleeting of ways. - crunchyeyeball, on 06/21/2009, -3/+10"...Why does the media not suppress stories about other kidnap victims if it is safer for the victim?"
They do, although obviously we tend not to here about them:- e.g., IT consultant Peter Moore, and four security guards were captured by armed militants at the Ministry of Finance in Baghdad in 2007 ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8111502.stm ).
"Little is known about the identities of the men because of a media blackout during a large period of their captivity...The blackout originally came on the instruction of the hostage-takers who said they did not want publicity."
We are only hearing about them now because two of their bodies have just been handed over, so sadly we have to assume whatever measures were being taken being the scenes haven't had the desired effect. - beerhound, on 06/21/2009, -0/+6It certainly is a double standard when the usual claim is along the lines of "we only report the news, we don't influence the news", but when one of their own is involved, they keep it quiet until he is safe. I have to wonder if this makes them more likely to be sued now that they have publicly admitted that their actions during a breaking story can have consequences. Some lawyer somewhere is already writing a draft of the law suit he will file on behalf of a victim the next time the news doesn't keep something quiet and someone is killed because of all the attention they bring. In the US, the 1st amendment is a pretty strong shield to stand behind. In many other countries the press isn't as protected, but they lawyers aren't as aggressive about suing.
Any thoughts to add? - mrfuzz, on 06/21/2009, -1/+6I'm glad those newsies are safe to face the real enemy: Bloggers.
- ajkrik, on 06/21/2009, -5/+10The media is business. It isn't public service. They act according to the needs of the organizational culture - make money. A lot of their priorities and operational paradigms are ultimately designed to produce income by being more competitive. Anything that looks like social responsibility, or double standard or "friendship" are functions of maintaining a competitive advantage. They have no duty to the public, and any pretense at that is BS. Maybe it was smart to keep kidnappings quiet, but that only happens because they have all colluded to bury a story. If there were agencies who truly just reported the news, this story would have been covered by the NY Times. News is bias.
- dglad, on 06/21/2009, -0/+3"...a quality newspaper's reputation for lack of bias is not based upon which stories they elect to report, but upon their lack of percieved politicising/editorialising whilst writing the stories that make it to print."
You're right--and wrong. What a newspaper or other media instrument chooses to report or not report is very much fundamental to their reputation for bias. Suppose Al-Jazeera refuses to cover the unrest in Iran. Suppose the NYT decides not to cover a growing scandal in Barak Obama's government, or Fox decides not to cover some major achievement by B-O's administration on the world stage? Is that merely an "editorial decision", based on "corporate needs", or is that because of ideology? Because we're not sitting in the A-J editorial boardroom, we're left to assume and assumptions strike at the heart of reputation. - bionh, on 06/21/2009, -1/+4I'm sure that there have been other similar suppressed stories that we haven't heard of.
Besides, favoritism happens--double standard or not. If you were a journalist, you'd be more likely to pull out all the stops to help a friend than someone you had never heard of. Everyone has certain people they are more likely to want to protect than others. - PHiZiK, on 06/21/2009, -1/+4trusted friend? Al-Jazeera is a news corporation, they're not supposed to be your "friend".
- rxbudian, on 06/21/2009, -0/+2Is Al Jazeera not a News Organization? why is it separated from the other 40 other news organization?
- inactive, on 06/21/2009, -2/+4News suppression? The media would never do that. Something like that would cause the public to loose confidence in their ability to differentiate between real news and propaganda.
- ismhmr, on 06/22/2009, -0/+2So you think Al-Qaeda is an organized military operation? Man, I hope they don't have a central command... Oh wait.. Thats CIA headquarters.
- beerhound, on 06/21/2009, -0/+1@digxag
I didn't intend that to be a comment about the NYT, but the press in general. I can see how that could be misinterpreted, so my bad.
I can't give you links to a story I read because the examples I can think of right now were TV news. Generally along the lines of one talking head criticizes the press for reporting a story in progress knowing the info in that report could be used by the perpetrators to harm others. Then another talking head says they were just doing their job and reporting the news. All the major tv news outlets use the format for a lot of different subject matter, pick one.
My comment didn't criticize the decision, it was an observation that a double standard exists. Any media outlet that sat on this story about a hostage (40+ according to the article) because they were concerned about the safety of a reporter, yet reported on another hostage who wasn't in the industry, is using a double standard to make their decisions.
FTA: John Daniszewski, an Associated Press senior managing editor, said that "it is not the most comfortable position to be in. Your instinct is to publish what you know. But we felt there was just too high a risk something would happen to him." Daniszewski said the AP also withheld news around the same time when a staffer for a nongovernmental organization was briefly kidnapped in Afghanistan.
The second part of my comment was just cynically wondering out loud if any in the legal profession would try to use that against the press. - 3Den, on 06/21/2009, -0/+1But if it was someone other than an employee of the news organisation, they wouldn't suppress it to protect them (which would be fine) - they would all scramble to report it as fast as possible to get ratings.
That's the point. - ozodin, on 06/21/2009, -0/+1Good point. Al Jazeera is a decent news organization. Their youtube English channel is quite good.
- Swift2, on 06/21/2009, -1/+2I can't believe some of the 'Freedom of Speech" arguments being made here. The NYT is an employer, and therefore have an obligation to act responsibly to protect their employee's life. The general population would not be enriched by the story being reported.
To be sure, every story involving kidnapping, hostages and public negotiations of ransom, for instance, all have to be balanced. In domestic cases, the FBI takes charge and tries to keep the case secret -- or at least the salient details. The news media are required to tell the public what they need to know. Knowing that Rohde had been kidnapped would have meant nothing to the public. But the Pakistani army finally aided in this escape. - ismhmr, on 06/21/2009, -1/+2Well, first it doesn't seem like there is any basis behind this story, and perhaps the other news organizations are afraid to run it because of that? Al Qaeda? Please, every time they talk about Al Qaeda, they aways go on about Al Qaeda's "second," in command getting captured, or the second in command doing this or that.
There is no video supporting this story. Its useless without evidence. It seems like more Al Qaeda propaganda in time for the controlled Obama administration to not close down Guantanamo Bay, just like they have not ended the war in Iraq, that Obama swore to up and down.
I am also tired of people using the name Al Qaeda which, for the non-schooled, Al Qaeda was the CIA database of names of Mujahadeem fighters fighting against the soviets in the 80s.
There is this notion of if something is shown on the news, it happened that way for sure, don't forget that the same central banks that are ruining the economy own clear channel. - digxag, on 06/21/2009, -1/+1Sure, first of all, can you find a cite for the NYT saying something along the lines of "we only report the news, we don't influence the news"? I mean, since it's their "usual claim" and all.
Secondly, newspapers aren't under any obligation to publish any particular story -- any large news desk is constantly getting irate calls along the lines of, "This is my 5th inquiry - why haven't you reported yet about the smell coming out of my neighbour's house?" They're allowed to show discretion as they see fit -- that's what causes them to function as "the fourth estate,"
Third, a quality newspaper's reputation for lack of bias is not based upon which stories they elect to report, but upon their lack of percieved politicising/editorialising whilst writing the stories that make it to print. - BKnecht, on 06/21/2009, -0/+0Daniel Pearl wan't quiet. He was from the NYTimes as well. He died.
There is a continuum (or a tightrope) between hard-hitting HONEST news and Faux news; drawing the line may change, depending upon the circumstances, but the two extremes are fairly clear at all times. - digxag, on 06/21/2009, -0/+0@dglad: I overreached in my sweeping assertion and was caught out by you. Thanks for bringing additional clarity to the issue.
@beerhound: I agree that from time to time various 'news' organizations have loudly proclaimed their impartiality, although it seems a touch unfair to judge the NY Times Co. by the statements uttered by Murdoch henchmen. About the legalities, my understanding is that at least in the USA, the press have the untrammelled right (not obligation) to publish what they reasonably believe to be the truth. In the event that someone is injured as an indirect result of that, liability ought not ensue. Lunatic terrorists are responsible for their own misbehaviour. - inactive, on 06/21/2009, -2/+2They have never once in the media ever said they captured Al-Queda's "second", the second has always been Ayman Al-Zawahiri who is infamous for having gone to prison in Egypt in the 70s for being one of the men behind the plot to kill Anwar Sadat.
You are confusing with Al-Queda in Iraq who we are constantly killing the no. 2 and keeps getting replaced. - gcnaddict, on 06/21/2009, -4/+3crunchyeyeball, you do know they escaped, right?
"the Times confirmed that Rohde and an assistant had escaped their Taliban captors in Pakistan." - inactive, on 06/21/2009, -2/+0Why would terrorists not want publicity.
- ml4rocky, on 06/21/2009, -8/+4They take care of their own. Who is shocked? There's always a double standard. We have to just live with it. Does this man that Al-Jazeera is now a trusted friend. Ha!
- magic6435, on 06/21/2009, -11/+5Because they knew him and had come kind of connection with the person... are you really that dense.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is