lots of press attention drives up ransom price, and interest from other parties.
That could get into a bidding war: NY Times vs Al Qaida, or others who might not treat him so well. If these guys are driven by money, they wouldn't hestiate to go on the open market, advertising him as the next potential Danny Pearl.
Al Qaida affiliates don't do a lot of kidnapping themselves; they contract out with local thugs, or take advantage of the people kidnappers happen to target.
@the_woog: What outrage? You're reading into it. And your point about the risks of captives getting sold upstream is taken. But the Times didn't say, "We're asking you not to publish because if news gets out, it would make him of more interest to a group that would kill him." It said the group that currently has him has told us directly that his life will be at increased risk if you or anyone else reports on it. What's wrong with asking the Times to account for the apparent difference between that and what Rohde and others are now saying? He's safe now. You're mistaking a question for a critique. There may be a critique to make of how the Times handled it, but I am not making it right now. I'm simply pointing out an apparent contradiction and announcing my intention to ask the Times to resolve it.
If the people who turned in Anne Frank's family rather than keep their mouths shut are wrong, how is there ANY QUESTION about whether to keep your mouth shut about Rohde?
They wanted to mark up his ransom price? What if he got held by some other kidnapper one day who was of the Daniel Pearl bent?
This is not a controversy. Someone is in life-threatening trouble, and if there is any question at all over whether reporting it is "good" or "bad" - you err on the side of keeping your trap shut.
"Flatly contradict"??? YOu guys are so great, it must be nice, from the safety of your apartments, to give the "public has the right to know" argument in any form. Ransom could have been paid and Rohde killed anyway. Kidnappers are not rational people who can be expected to honor their end of the bargain.
You kept quiet on the story because you felt a life was in danger. If they had told you (or any other "news agency") that it was about money, perhaps you would have taken it less seriously.
The Times doesn't owe you anything. It said what it said and kept it's reporter safe.
@cynyc: I'm simply interested in whether the Times lies to me and others in the course if keeping their reporter safe. I have made no judgment about the propriety of such a lie given the circumstances, if indeed such a lie was told--I don't have enough information right now to do so. People may be reading into my use of the word "account"--the Times could account for the lie by saying, "We were right to lie and we'd do it again." I'm simply interested in calling it what it is.
@John Cook: Right, because New York magazine is the place I go when I want 100%-fact-certitude on a story. The story ALSO says that Rohde was bought and sold to different people. Each of whom had different motives/wants/means.
I also want to laugh at the "we were never really worried". Really? How about then YOU get into a room with armed insurgents who hate America and tell me Rohde's life was safe.
All this fuss over "did they 'lie' or 'exaggerate'" and wanting the NY Times to fess up. So you can do a "gotcha!" when/if they said they did. I'm torn between being disgusted and angry.
Why are you dead set on calling it a "lie", with such negative connotations, as opposed to possible disinformation to possibly help keep a man alive?
There are times when people don't need to know everything, and interests are better served to not tell the entire story.
I'm sorry that they hurt your feelings by lying to you. Would you have been equally bent out of shape if Eisenhower told you the invasion of Europe was going to scheduled for July?
@cynyc: It might be disinformation, but it is more likely just imperfect information. They had sporadic cell phone contact, and were getting information 3rd-hand from informant to K&R company - on top of dealing with changing kidnappers. I'd say that in the face of imperfect information, they played it safe with someone's life.
I also want to know - let's say they said "run with the story" - and Rohde was killed. Guaranteed John Cook would have been posting "NY Times: We Don't Care if Loose Lips Kill Our Reporters".
@UlvaMiskeen: "Grade school snitch" - quote of the day!
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. 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.
gurl, please! He didn't "just climb over a wall", he escaped from the muthafrakin' Taliban! We'll know the whole story soon, I suppose, but I bet the guy planned this for months and just waited for the right opp. Good for him!
@Aaron Bandy: You know, I kind of doubt it. I think he was trapped there for months, and happened to notice one night when a guard went for a cigg break or something. They'll find a way to turn it into a book with valuable film rights, though, believe you me.
07/01/09
06/23/09
oh, wait
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/24/09
06/23/09
That could get into a bidding war: NY Times vs Al Qaida, or others who might not treat him so well. If these guys are driven by money, they wouldn't hestiate to go on the open market, advertising him as the next potential Danny Pearl.
Al Qaida affiliates don't do a lot of kidnapping themselves; they contract out with local thugs, or take advantage of the people kidnappers happen to target.
Outrage is way off base, here.
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
They wanted to mark up his ransom price? What if he got held by some other kidnapper one day who was of the Daniel Pearl bent?
This is not a controversy. Someone is in life-threatening trouble, and if there is any question at all over whether reporting it is "good" or "bad" - you err on the side of keeping your trap shut.
"Flatly contradict"??? YOu guys are so great, it must be nice, from the safety of your apartments, to give the "public has the right to know" argument in any form. Ransom could have been paid and Rohde killed anyway. Kidnappers are not rational people who can be expected to honor their end of the bargain.
06/23/09
The Times doesn't owe you anything. It said what it said and kept it's reporter safe.
06/23/09
06/23/09
I also want to laugh at the "we were never really worried". Really? How about then YOU get into a room with armed insurgents who hate America and tell me Rohde's life was safe.
All this fuss over "did they 'lie' or 'exaggerate'" and wanting the NY Times to fess up. So you can do a "gotcha!" when/if they said they did. I'm torn between being disgusted and angry.
06/23/09
Why are you dead set on calling it a "lie", with such negative connotations, as opposed to possible disinformation to possibly help keep a man alive?
There are times when people don't need to know everything, and interests are better served to not tell the entire story.
I'm sorry that they hurt your feelings by lying to you. Would you have been equally bent out of shape if Eisenhower told you the invasion of Europe was going to scheduled for July?
06/23/09
I also want to know - let's say they said "run with the story" - and Rohde was killed. Guaranteed John Cook would have been posting "NY Times: We Don't Care if Loose Lips Kill Our Reporters".
@UlvaMiskeen: "Grade school snitch" - quote of the day!
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