Secret kidnap victim Rohde escapes from Taliban

[Annie]

Yet the point of all this is the reality that our right to know is utterly dependent on what the News media wants us to know.

That the NYTimes put out the information of how the US was tracking bin Laden via sat phone, but when it's one of 'their own' in peril, suddenly they can get cooperation is just evidence of hypocrisy. They can keep secrets, they can spin stories or they cannot. Problem for them is most brighter people have caught on and hardly bother with them anymore.

 

[Gunny]

Yet the point of all this is the reality that our right to know is utterly dependent on what the News media wants us to know.

True. The media decides what it will or won't print. However, you and many others confuse your "right to know" with thinking that is a right to be informed. While it gets tossed around a lot, I know of no actual legal requirement to keep you informed.

 

[Annie]

Yet the point of all this is the reality that our right to know is utterly dependent on what the News media wants us to know.

True. The media decides what it will or won't print. However, you and many others confuse your "right to know" with thinking that is a right to be informed. While it gets tossed around a lot, I know of no actual legal requirement to keep you informed.

Exactly. They can print or report what they choose. We then choose what to read and listen to. Right now it's not working out too well for nearly all the print media and a growing segment of the visual media.

They however seem wedded to what they wish to report, even at the expense of their businesses, so more power to them!

 

[Gunny]

Yet the point of all this is the reality that our right to know is utterly dependent on what the News media wants us to know.

True. The media decides what it will or won't print. However, you and many others confuse your "right to know" with thinking that is a right to be informed. While it gets tossed around a lot, I know of no actual legal requirement to keep you informed.

Exactly. They can print or report what they choose. We then choose what to read and listen to. Right now it's not working out too well for nearly all the print media and a growing segment of the visual media.

They however seem wedded to what they wish to report, even at the expense of their businesses, so more power to them!

I was really just looking at it from the issue of the perceived and/or assumed "right to know."

The ethics of journalism so disgusted me that I spent 4 years in it, had a scholarship to take it further, and just walked away. The complete lack of any sense of responsibility turned me off most. They feel responsible only to getting the breaking story. Not to the truth, nor the reader.

How many stories have we seen on this board that break so fast no one knows what Hell is going on? People fight all day, or for days based on nothing but their speculation over soundbytes.

The misinformation that was spread all over the place when that ship's captain was held hostage by those pirates comes to mind as a prime example.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It's more of the same...

I'll just reiterate what's already been said...

The Media; and I'm speaking of the Anti-American Socialist advocates of the NYT specifically; they're perfectly fine with endagering the lives of US troops, and the means of the American Government to successfully prosecute the war on our enemies; while advocating for the enemies positions, cloaking themselves in the 'right of the American People to know...' but where the lives of their family and friends at at stake... suddenly they're 'on the team'...

Screw them... what will interesting to read is this reporters piece, which will likely portray the Taliban as being misunderstood and the US war on them as some travesty against the downtrodden...

Should be a laugh riot.

 

[Ravi]

We have the right to know what the government is doing, and we also have the right to decide to let them operate under secrecy when need be.

We have no right to know what a private enterprise is doing unless it endangers us or violates our rights somehow.

I stand by my assertion that many here are none too bright.

 

[Annie]

We have the right to know what the government is doing, and we also have the right to decide to let them operate under secrecy when need be.

We have no right to know what a private enterprise is doing unless it endangers us or violates our rights somehow.

I stand by my assertion that many here are none too bright.

"We" as you are purporting to use it, doesn't include you, unless you work for NYTimes or other MSM media. Obviously if you are one of 'us', the unwashed masses, you don't have jack. My guess you have less than less jack than average.

See here's the deal. The media questions the power brokers, then reports. Or doesn't. WE respond to that. If all you check is MSM, that's it. If you go beyond, well there you go.

 

[DamnYankee]

There is no right to know that this man was kidnapped. If the government had been withholding the information, you might have a case.

Really? Did you by any chance read the commentary in this thread, or did you just pop-in and then drive by? Let's take just one example of our "right to know" as exemplified by the press -- Jon Benet. Dayum.... They made sure we knew every fuckin' detail even if it wasn't true, for the good of the case ya know, to enable law enforcement to better do its job. Now you feel free to explain to me how witholding the information on the kidnapping of a NYT employee BY 40 MEDIA OUTLETS was more of a help than a hindrance, considering the length of time he was in captivity and considering he was dumb fuckin' luck that he escaped.

 

[DamnYankee]

Irrefutable point.

A news story will kill troops? Run it.
A news story will kill a journalist? Censor it.

Not that journalism lacks for hypocrisies, biases and other bad habits.

Keller says at least 40 news outlets knew of the abduction

Now, if at least 40 news outlets knew of the abduction of a child and kept it secret, for the safety of the child of course, wouldn't we be screaming that the greater good would be that disclosure would be more valuable in order to locate the child?

Not the same thing. A kidnapped child within the US is a completely different scenario than a kidnapped journalist in the Middle East.

I seriously doubt any Arabs are going to get all excited over an amber alert for a kidnapped Western journalist. We on the other hand, present the "there's no place to run to or hide" message because we as a society DO care about our children being kidnapped.

The case being made wasn't about the Arabs getting all excited, but that if the abduction hadn't been kept a secret, isn't is probable/plausible that special ops would have been directed to engage in a search and rescue mission?

 

[Ravi]

You are making absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Why don't you show us where it is written that we have a right to know if a journalist is kidnapped.

 

[DamnYankee]

You are making absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Why don't you show us where it is written that we have a right to know if a journalist is kidnapped.

Better yet.... Show me where it's written that we don't.... Especially since they don't give a damn about PRIVACY unless it's ONE OF THEIR OWN

 

[Ravi]

We have the right to know what the government is doing basically because we are the government.

We do not have the right to know that this private citizen was kidnapped anymore than you have the right to know what my name is...if he were a government employee we might have that right if we demanded it.

So unless you can prove your assertion you are just being hysterical, as usually.

btw, we had no right to know all the details of Jon Benet, either. The media is within it's rights to report as it sees fit.

 

[MaggieMae]

I met him once at a party, after he'd won the Pulitzer. Very quiet, very unassuming. And now we know... balls the size of planets.

I'll second that, but don't you find it the least bit interesting that the media reports what they feel you have the right to know and omit what they feel you do not have the right to know? Who's freedom trumps whose? When it's convenient for the media, they want freedom of the press. When it isn't, the public's right to know is ignored and freedom of the press is freedom for secrecy.

I'm sure there was covert activity to get them out. Should the CIA-Special Ops publish their strategy on the Internet just because certain people (you?) need to politicize everything?

 

[MaggieMae]

Irrefutable point.

A news story will kill troops? Run it.
A news story will kill a journalist? Censor it.

Not that journalism lacks for hypocrisies, biases and other bad habits.

Your right on this statement. The New York Times was leaking classified information under the Bush administration without hesitation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/29/washington/29leak.html?_r=1

Leaks about secret counterterrorist programs, and the decision of The Times and other news media outlets to publish information on them, have been roundly denounced by President Bush and other administration officials. Some civil libertarians have defended the leaks as acts of conscience on the part of federal workers trying to stop illegal or unethical government activities.

Mr. Tice said in a telephone interview on Friday that he believed that the leak investigation and subpoena were designed to discourage whistle-blowers. “I feel this is an intimidation tactic aimed at me and anyone who’s considering dropping a dime on criminal activity by the government,” he said.

The American Civil Liberties Union denounced the subpoena as part of an effort to cover up government wrongdoing.

“Courageous federal employees like Mr. Tice who bring hidden truths to light, letting lawmakers and the American people know when official misconduct has occurred, perform a valuable public service,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the A.C.L.U.’s legislative office in Washington.

A Justice Department official, who would discuss the confidential criminal investigation only on condition of anonymity, said that the leak inquiry was in a preliminary investigative phase and that no journalist had been subpoenaed. The official said federal agents had interviewed officials at several intelligence agencies about their contacts with reporters at The Times and other news organizations.

Ahh yes.... Gotta love it when the alledged whistle-blower gets a subpoena (know something about that!) and the public entity responsible for broadcasting the information all across America does not!

So it's more important to make this issue a political one by comparing the activities of the NYT regarding the Iraq war. In other words, who gives a fuck that the guy was kidnapped and managed to escape Jack Bauer style, just so long as it gives all you hacks an opportunity to slam the NYT.

I get it now. Mentioning the Bush Administration is only allowed by you people when it's to your advantage to do so.

 

[MaggieMae]

Freedom of the press means the government cannot tell the press what to print.

A lot of people on this forum are none too bright, I see.

Good for him for escaping and for his employer for being concerned about his safety.

Speaking of none too bright.... Perhaps you could point out who said (and where) that the GOVERNMENT should tell the press what to print. Take your time.

He SAID it couldn't.

 

[MaggieMae]

There is no right to know that this man was kidnapped. If the government had been withholding the information, you might have a case.

I still say if government factions were trying to get them released, they are most CERTAINLY NOT obligated to let the public in on how they were trying to do that.

WTF???

The hostages taken during the Iranian crisis in the 80's were all private citizens too, kidnapped for political purposes. Did Carter or Reagan let the MSM know ever detail of their plans to get them released?

Jeezus, people, THINK!!!!!!!!!

 

[MaggieMae]

Yet the point of all this is the reality that our right to know is utterly dependent on what the News media wants us to know.

The "point" of the whole ordeal should instead be thankful that they are safe, however it unfolded.

 

[MaggieMae]

Yet the point of all this is the reality that our right to know is utterly dependent on what the News media wants us to know.

That the NYTimes put out the information of how the US was tracking bin Laden via sat phone, but when it's one of 'their own' in peril, suddenly they can get cooperation is just evidence of hypocrisy. They can keep secrets, they can spin stories or they cannot. Problem for them is most brighter people have caught on and hardly bother with them anymore.

Oh please. Bin Laden and Zawahari aren't stupid. If they were using cell phones, other than throwaways, they would have known they could be tracked. I was a STORY, period.

 

[dilloduck]

Yet the point of all this is the reality that our right to know is utterly dependent on what the News media wants us to know.

The "point" of the whole ordeal should instead be thankful that they are safe, however it unfolded.

After we give thanks can we examine the event from a few different angles or is the whole truth too big of a bite?

 

[MaggieMae]

True. The media decides what it will or won't print. However, you and many others confuse your "right to know" with thinking that is a right to be informed. While it gets tossed around a lot, I know of no actual legal requirement to keep you informed.

Exactly. They can print or report what they choose. We then choose what to read and listen to. Right now it's not working out too well for nearly all the print media and a growing segment of the visual media.

They however seem wedded to what they wish to report, even at the expense of their businesses, so more power to them!

I was really just looking at it from the issue of the perceived and/or assumed "right to know."

The ethics of journalism so disgusted me that I spent 4 years in it, had a scholarship to take it further, and just walked away. The complete lack of any sense of responsibility turned me off most. They feel responsible only to getting the breaking story. Not to the truth, nor the reader.

How many stories have we seen on this board that break so fast no one knows what Hell is going on? People fight all day, or for days based on nothing but their speculation over soundbytes.

The misinformation that was spread all over the place when that ship's captain was held hostage by those pirates comes to mind as a prime example.

That's all so very true. Almost always, the whole truth and background are completely missing from a blaring THIS JUST IN "report." It's usually wise to wait a full day before rushing to form an opinion and even then after reading how the story is being spun by the various news outlets and sort out fact from fiction yourself.