Freed NYT Reporter Reminds Us of Dangers of Real Journalism

by Robert Quigley | 8:43 am, September 9th, 2009

» 1 comment

Screen shot 2009-09-09 at 7.45.21 AM

This morning, New York Times reporter Stephen Farrell was freed from his captors in northern Afghanistan by a military raid that took the life of his interpreter. As in the case of David Rohde, the Times asked news outlets not to report on Farrell’s capture, although fortunately his was a shorter ordeal than Rohde’s.

According to Greg Mitchell of Editor & Publisher, E&P found out about Farrell’s disappearance on their own, but Times executive editor Bill Keller asked them not to publish anything. Hours later, Mitchell was freed. Who could possibly object to this tactful, sensible handling of things? This being the Internet, there’s always someone.

When New York Times reporter David Rohde was kidnapped in Afghanistan last November and held there for several months, the Times asked print and online sources, including Wikipedia, not to publish anything about the kidnapping for fear that it would further endanger Rohde’s life. (Ironically, it was Stephen Farrell who wrote the story of Rohde’s escape.) One might think that showing some restraint to help protect a human life would be a no-brainer, especially since Rohde’s kidnapping was its own story and not connected to a larger story of public interest.

But Wikipedians freaked out about the Times‘ — a print publication’s! — ability to suppress content on the Free Encyclopedia that Anyone Can Edit. One blogger wrote that “One can’t help but think that The Times – along with these other media organization – who so often sprout about a free and unhindered press; about the rights of the media to report the news without favour – have set a very bad precedent with the Rohde kidnapping.”

Well… no. What bloggers and aggregators who associate ‘reporting’ with ‘writing down my opinion’ often forget is that real reporters do real work, and often put their lives in real danger. If any given pundit suddenly vanished from the blogosphere, things probably wouldn’t change all that much, but if a Rohde or a Mitchell vanishes, a vital swathe of foreign correspondence disappears, the likes of which can’t easily be replaced. The Times — and the outlets that respected its calls not to report on the kidnappings — did the ethical, responsible thing by getting past the angels-dancing-on-pins arguments and protecting real human lives.

Afghanistan, David Rohde, Greg Mitchell, New York Times, NYT, Stephen Farrell

libra blue

I have great respect the “real” reporters who do real work by putting their lives on the line to bring us reports from the war zone and I am very glad that Farrell was freed from his captors. These are indeed a special breed of journalists that recognize the importance of their work and respect the intelligence of their readers.

These kidnappings should never be exploited by the MSM. The organizations that respected the Times request did the right thing.

Although I am concerned for the welfare of these brave journalists, I am troubled that the soldiers seem to be responsible for their safety wen they are in Iraq or Afghanistan. During Farrell’s release/rescue a British Special Forces soldier was killed.

I have been watching Anderson report from Afghanistan this week surrounded by a number of soldiers. I would be interested in knowing if organizations like CNN supply the security for their personnel or do they rely solely on military personnel to protect them. In the past I have heard that they hire former soldiers for security, but I don’t know if that is still the case.