News and No News

Is this story true? I haven't found any other reports:

Kunduz, Afghanistan - A New York Times journalist visiting the site of the deadly Nato airstrike in the northern Afghan province of Kunduz was kidnapped along with his Afghan interpreter on Saturday, the provincial governor said.

The journalist, who went to talk to villagers in Omarkhel village in the Chardarah district was kidnapped by Taliban militants, Mohammad Omar, the provincial governor, told the German Press Agency dpa.

"The journalist, who works for New York Times, and his translator were blindfolded by the militants and taken to unknown location" the governor said, adding that Afghan security forces have began a search operation in the area to track down the kidnappers.

No word on that in the American media - generally for a major story that's an indication the report might not be completely trustworthy. However, in the past these types of stories have been suppressed, so no similar conclusion can be drawn here.

Bill Roggio reports:

Multiple sources in Afghanistan tell me that The New York Times is attempting to suppress the reporting on Farrell's kidnapping. The New York Times did the same thing when journalist David Rohde was kidnapped in eastern Afghanistan late last year. Rohde was released earlier this year after escaping from a Haqqani Network compound in North Waziristan.

If the story is true, as Bill points out, "The kidnapping of Farrell serves only to highlight the deteriorating security situation in the northern province of Kunduz (and neighboring Baghlan)"

On the larger matter of suppressing news, the New York Times does have this letter from Secretary Gates to Thomas Curley, President and CEO of the Associated Press:

Mr Thomas Curley President and Chief Executive Officer Associated Press 450 West 33rd Street New York, NT 10001

Mr Curley:

Today I leaned that the Associated Press plans to publish a graphic photograph of Lance Corporal Joshua M Bernard taken shortly after he received mortal wounds. I understands that you have decided to do this over the objection of Lance Corporal Bernard's grieving father. Out of respect for his family's wishes, I ask you in the strongest of terms to reconsider your decision.

I do not make this request lightly. In one of my first public statements as Secretary of Defense, I stated the media should not be treated as the enemy, and made it a point to thank journalists for revealing problems that need to be fixed - as was the case at Walter Reed. I have long been committed to more transparency with regard to media access - even when that means showing war's terrible human cost. Earlier this year I lifted the ban on images of the return of the fallen at Dover Air Force Base. I did so with one overriding thought in mind: to give families the opportunity to honor their fallen however they saw fit and for the American people to understand, to see, and to appreciate the enormity of their sacrifice.

The American people understand that death is an awful and inescapable part of war - a fact driven home to me in a very personal way each time I write a condolence letter. Those of us who have not lost loved ones in war can never know what it feels like. All we can do is pay tribute to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, and respect the wishes of their families. Publication of this image will do neither and will mark an unconscionable departure from the restraint that most journalists and publications have shown covering the military since September 11th.

I cannot imagine the pain and suffering Lance Corporal Bernard's death has caused his family. Why your organization would purposefully defy the family's wishes knowing full well that it will lead to yet more anguish is beyond me. Your lack of compassion and common sense in choosing to put this image of their maimed and stricken child on the front page of multiple American newspapers is appalling. The issue here is not law, policy, or constitutional right - but judgment and common decency.

Sincerely
[Signed]

Greg Mitchell, editor of Editor & Publisher responds at the Huffington Post:

Going back to 2002, I have been writing about the shameful reluctance, even refusal, of U.S. media outlets to carry graphic images of the true cost of our wars, to Americans, in Iraq and Afghanistan -- fatally wounded U.S. soldiers and Marines.

Earlier today, the Associated Press -- bucking the wishes of the Pentagon and the victim's family -- decided to go ahead and transmit such a photo.

It was not a one-off bit of "sensationalism" but part of a tasteful and remarkable tribute package profiling the dead Marine...

"Top papers such as The New York Times, Washington Post and L.A. Times carried the AP story, but not the image." Mitchell tells us - but what he doesn't say (because he wants you to get your snuff porn fix learn about the true cost of wars at his web site) is that the New York Times published the photo on their web site - under the absurd headline "Behind the Scenes: To Publish or Not?".

By Mitchell's logic, did Rohde's "shameful reluctance, even refusal" to allow his captors to use him as the star in a snuff porn video deny the media a chance to "show the true cost of our wars to Americans"?

Did he fail as a reporter?

Back to you, Greg.

While we wait for further understanding of the stories above, here's something to ponder. Back in late March, 2004, "video was obtained" by the media of the killing and mutilation of American contractors in Fallujah, Iraq. The story then:

WASHINGTON - Every war or disaster contains moments that become defining images: a napalmed girl or a gun to the head in Vietnam, the body of a U.S. soldier dragged through a Somalian street.

It is not clear whether the 80 seconds of video Wednesday showing images of charred American bodies being beaten and dangled from the steelwork of a bridge over the Euphrates River will come to define the war in Iraq.

But once again, broadcasters and news executives were torn between a question of taste and the demand to give viewers and readers information that could affect the course of history.

"War is a horrible thing. It is about killing," ABC News "Nightline" Executive Producer Leroy Sievers said in an unusual message to the program's e-mail subscribers discussing the issues posed by Wednesday's killings.

Every news organization that shared the video or still clips with their viewers or readers had their own reasons for doing so. "While showing the images could erode support for the war, not showing them could have an opposite effect", the LA Times explained. Other professionals weighed in, too.

Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Washington-based Project for Excellence in Journalism, said "the pictures from Wednesday's attack could anger viewers or engender disenchantment about the war."

John Schulz, dean of Boston University's College of Communications and a former faculty member at the National War College: "These are the kinds of pictures that will linger, they'll be there in November when people go to vote."

That November, people reelected George Bush.

But here's the Brookings Institute's graph of American casualties in Iraq from 2003-2007, I've placed a vertical line on March, 2003:

The two peaks are the battles in Fallujah, but aside from those there's an obvious "before and after".

Update: Revisiting Ethics in America (and elsewhere)

Previously: AP is 'truly appalling' - UPDATED

A sampling of related posts:

Choice

The Fallen

Dover

The Return

Tic tic tic...

More bad press

Even more bad press

A combination of blurring and smearing

Lying Times

Media, Military, and Professional Ethics

Targeting Journalists

Target: Media

Sites