New York, 7:40 AM
Tue Dec 1
57 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
| posts about #badasshappyendings more → |
Why Did Nobody Pick Up The David Rohde Kidnapping Story? |
David Rohde Is Free From Taliban Kidnapping |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
Gawker 
06/21/09
06/21/09
06/21/09
06/21/09
Just that in the search for an explanation, there's not a lot of difference between this case and others in which publishers, editors and reporters have decided that the 'newsworthiness of the information' or the 'public right to now' is more important than the individual's needs.
So rather than split hairs, worth at least exploring the reasonable assumption that the actual individuals who made these decisions did so because it was a friend of a friend of a friend, or a potential employer saw the Times publisher occassionally at events, etc.
It's not venal, it's just human nature and worth discussing I think.
06/20/09
06/20/09
06/20/09
And Rhode has yet to be called a "boy" in any press account.
06/20/09
And Rhode has yet to be called a "boy" in any press account.
Nice. I can't give gold stars, but you'd get one for that.
06/22/09
06/20/09
06/20/09
"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. The kidnappers initially said as much," said Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times.
Keller's understating how effective their news blackout was on Rohde's kidnapping. It had been widely known in the Times newsroom and media circles almost as soon as he was taken hostage; there was a report in the Afghan press and a few mentions on several blogs. For months if you start typing "David Rohde" into Google, the second search it suggests has been "david rohde kidnapped."
Still it never became a big thing like the captivity of Laura Ling and Euna Lee in North Korea because the Times was aggressive in asking outlets not to mention Rohde. When I first called the Times about this back around December, Catherine Mathis asked that we not publish anything because it could put Rohde's life in danger. Put that way, it was hard not to agree.
But still, in this age of the big bad online gossip-mongers, it was surprising to see that the NYT was able to keep so effectively keep the lid on a story.
Of course, that cooperation did not prevent the Times from publishing a pretentious story sneering at "lesser" outlets for putting their reporters in dangerous situations without the massive clout of the New York Times behind them. I am very glad to hear that Rohde is safe, but as they reported it, he escaped by walking over a wall and without any of the "experience and leverage" of an established news organization.
06/20/09
06/20/09
06/20/09