But, then I saw where The New York Times, and some other newspapers, have been keeping a secret for the last seven months. This secret is that one of the reporters for The Times had been kidnapped and was being held captive by the Taliban. On the recommendation of experts on kidnapping and negotiations The New York Times elected to keep it all quiet and other newspapers, like The Washington Post, went along. Here is part of a news report from the WashPost:
"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," Bill Keller, the Times' executive editor, said in a story posted on the Times' Web site.I think The New York Times and the WashPost and other news outlets did the right thing to keep quiet about this.
"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."
That said, it gives me a more jaundiced view of those situations where The New York Times sees fit to disclose military secrets, based upon the right of the People to know. I like the right of the People to know. I also like to see a balance when it involves the lives of our Service members and the security of our nation. I just think I would like to see The New York Times appearing a little less sanctimonious about the whole "National Secrets" thing.
Regards — Cliff
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be forthright, but please consider that this is not a barracks.