More thoughts on the NYT's Rohde cover-up

Published Jun 29 2009, 01:30 PM by Adam Reilly

Writes a commenter of my defense of the NYT's/Wikipedia's handling of the David Rohde situation:

I'd be more understanding if it wasn't for the NYT double-standard. When it comes to releasing information about our secret program to track terrorists finances, they have no qualms about publishing that info, in essence working against America's safety. So what happens when terrorism hits home with them? Surprise, it's "hush-hush" to the point of deleting public information again or again. I'm glad the reporter is OK, but I'll never trust the NYT, and now wikipedia.

That's an important point, and one I should have addressed in my original post. So I'll do it here instead.

When the Times reports something like the warrantless wiretapping story, they're operating on the assuption that the threat to privacy is a massive public ill that outweighs any potential safety threat stemming from their coverage. Whether you buy that argument or not, it's possible to make it.

In the Rohde case, in contrast, there's no comparably grave public ill that followed directly from the decision not to report. There are more abstract concerns, e.g. the invitation of the hypocrisy charge leveled here.

Then again, the potential downside of reporting Rohde's kidnapped status--i.e., one man's life, versus (possibly) thousands or tens of thousands--was smaller, if more imminent. That may sound callous, especially to Rohde's friends/families/colleagues, but it's true.

Readers, any thoughts on whether the Times and Wikipedia did the right thing? I still think the answer's yes, and I'd certainly want my employer advocating just as aggressively on my behalf if I were in harm's way. Still, it's a very thorny question.

Congrats to Boston's Murrow Award winners

Defending Wikipedia (and the NYT)--updated!

2 Comments

tallape said:

Unquestionably, yes, the Times was right on this one (as was Jimmy Wales and the Wikipedia Foundation).

(Okay, questionably, but still.)

In the wiretapping case (and any number of similar cases through the years), there's a harm involved. To the Constitution, to principles that this country has said that it holds dear, and so on.

In the case of David Rohde, there was only one harm involved: the potential harm to the individual. That makes it, in my view, a no-brainer.

The obvious response is that there's a harm here to the First Amendment. But freedom of the press doesn't mean that the press has to publish every piece of information that it has; it means that press is free to publish information if it chooses to. And if others decide that the reason they're given not to publish is compelling, they don't need to do so either.

Journalism is a competitive industry; if there were a threat to the First Amendment, someone would have had this story on the front page months ago.

June 30, 2009 1:02 AM
GuyfromNH said:

Adam,

I'd be more understanding of the Times' position as well except for two specific cases where they put individuals in harm's way for the sake of a story... and not in a global, releasing-government-secrets-balanced-against-people's-right-to-know deal...

The first is when they identified, *by name*, a CIA officer involved in the interrogation of terrorism suspects. There was never any accusation that this officer had done anything illegal or even remotely approaching torture. He did his job in a professional, humane way, and got good intelligence, but the Times outed him, exposing he and his family to danger. Where was the need there for the Times to specifically name him?

The second is during the Obama-McCain campaign, when the Times identified one of McCain's sons as an active duty Marine officer, who had served in Iraq and who might be returning to duty there... and despite the strong pleadings from the McCains that their son -- who was not involved in the campaign -- be left alone, again, the Times outed him. And a quick Google search later, any terrorist could have McCain's son's photograph... again, the Times placed him in severe danger, and for what purpose or value?

So when the Times pleads for special understanding to protect one of their own... I understand it, but I understand the rank hypocrisy even better.

June 30, 2009 12:36 PM