AI writes with a story from the NY Times about a 7-month-long effort, largely successful, to
keep news of a Times reporter's kidnapping off of Wikipedia. The Christian Science Monitor, the reporter David Rohde's previous employer, takes a harder look at the
issues of censorship and news blackout, linking to several blogs critical of Wikipedia's actions. Rohde escaped from a Taliban compound, along with his translator, on Saturday.
"For seven months, The New York Times managed to keep out of the news the fact that one of its reporters, David Rohde, had been kidnapped by the Taliban. But that was pretty straightforward compared with keeping it off Wikipedia. ... A dozen times, user-editors posted word of the kidnapping on Wikipedia's page on Mr. Rohde, only to have it erased. Several times the page was frozen, preventing further editing — a convoluted game of cat-and-mouse that clearly angered the people who were trying to spread the information of the kidnapping... The sanitizing was a team effort, led by Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, along with Wikipedia administrators and people at The Times."
the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
By keeping the secret, they may have kept him alive long enough for him to escape.
You may call it censorship, I call it protecting the life of a journalist.
Or, since I DNRTFA, I could be completely off base. But I did read about this kidnapping previously, and I think I'm on track here. Plus I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, the reporter is kidnapped. You know what his captors want? Publicity for their campaign
And how is that different from any other person that gets kidnapped and that the newspapers report on?
I'll tell you: it's only different because it's a reporter has been kidnapped. When it's a doctor, politician, priest, baby, nun, lawyer, businessman, girl, or oil worker, they smear it all over the front pages and milk it for all it's worth.
I find this double standard pretty disgusting.
Parent
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Informative)
That's a pretty good catch-22, if he wasn't a Pulitzer winning Journalist, his kidnapping would have been as newsworthy a purse snatching in NY.
Parent
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally don't mind a little restraint from news outlets. However, as in this case, the driving force seems to be self-motivated instead of a consistent policy. This same organization has a history of doing just the opposite when it isn't a reporter. And will likely continue to do so. It's this level of hypocrisy I have contempt for. I don't respect people or organizations that don't follow their own supposed moral code, period.
Parent
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:4, Informative)
Do you imagine that the kidnappers of those Americans didn't seek the massive news attention to their actions?
Parent
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Amnesty saves captives' lives by the very principle of spreading information of their capture, and has been doing so for a very long time. I suspect this has little to do with saving the captive's life, and more to do with a newspaper deciding it knows how to control the media, and probably should for their employee/friend's sake, without taking the time to think about whether it's actually the right course of action. Ironic for a newspaper to believe in censoring information.
Parent
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Captives who are not public figures are very different from captives who are. The reasons for abducting them are different, the gains from how the captivity is ended are very different.
An organisation like the Taliban has little to gain from killing a nobody -- and public attention to the fate of that captive provides a disincentive to spare their life. The threat of reprisal, etc, if there is public attention, is simply too great for them to off some random person. Killing a public persona -- that's a different matter. Then the gains from killing them may outweigh the risk of reprisal, etc.
Parent
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't you think of some examples then spend half a second thinking about how those examples might be different from this situation? Amnesty typically shines a light on governments. Governments, by their very nature, are subject to political pressure as they often depend to some degree on the goodwill of other nations. Freelancing militants? Not so much.
Parent
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I had no idea that the people who run wikipedia actively changed stories for political ends.
How is keeping a journalist alive "political ends"?
Parent
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Funny)
It's obviously a pro-life bias.
Parent
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. They firmly believe in your right to choose between radical Islam and death.
Parent
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:4, Insightful)
That's easy to say when it isn't the life of your father or brother or son at stake. I absolutely agree that Wikipedia should be interested only in facts but like any principle, there are situations worthy of an exception. In this case, I don't think the timely publishing of the event was all that valuable, especially in comparison to the potential downside of publishing it.
Perhaps you no longer trust Wikipedia. Personally I'm not particularly bothered by this as the truth has come out.
Parent
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
So are you complaining that in this instance the people working at a repository of information chose NOT to be callous and indifferent? Are you also trying to argue that Wikipedia is a member of the press or government? I suppose if you used a loose enough definition of "the press" you could include Wikipedia in it (keeping in mind that the owners and the contributes are rarely one in the same.) Of course, such a broad definition is rendered so utterly meaningless that trying to ascribe to its members duties, principals, or "a job" is fairly sanctimonious and conceited.
Even if you've found some of their behavior to be irresponsible in the past you can not simultaneously decry that previous behavior and their decision to err on the side of caution when it came to this story. The manner in which you and others are attempting to point out what you perceive to be hypocrisy rings as rather hypocritical itself.
Don't misunderstand - I'm not saying you are wrong to argue that news outlets can by inconsistent or even outright hypocritical. I'm saying that you, and others here, seeming to be simultaneously decrying both the idea of a journalist's "duty to the truth" and the idea of "responsible reporting." You attempt to attack them for failing to stick to a particular principal while you yourself attempt to maintain ambivalence.
You can not bemoan the hypocrisy of the press, and non-press information repositories like Wikipedia, while you yourself seem unable to take a real side at the issue at hand. How can you fault them for being unable to choose a principal when you don't seem to have any hard and fast ones as far as these issues go?
Parent
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course Wikipedia should have an interest in the story beyond the mere facts presented. They need to worry about copyright and tort liability for example. That kills your argument.
What you probably meant to say is that Wikipedia should have no MORAL interest in the story beyond the mere facts presented. Fortunately, many people (including Mr. Wales)do not agree with you.
When you balance the risk of a single human life in this particular case against one website's terms of use policy, the decision isn't very hard.
Parent
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Informative)
At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, perhaps the most blatant example would be the bombing of Coventry.
Good example...except that it did not happen [bbc.co.uk].
Parent
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Funny)
I died in the bombing of Coventry, you insensitive clod!
Parent
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Or you get out of an imaginary dream world and realize that your choices affect the lives of others and that sometimes the idealistic option is not the right one. If not getting someone killed is a "political end," then I'm 100% in favor of their actions.
Furthermore, Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia, not a news outlet. It's not at all obvious that there's a conflict in restraining information for a temporary period. Have you noticed that they tend to clamp down pretty freely on articles that are hot news topics, such as celebrity deaths?
Parent
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom is great.
With it comes responsibility.
If exercising that responsibility through editorial actions in a case where a real human being's life is in real danger of being ended is unacceptable to your view of what Wikipedia should be, then I am profoundly thankful that you are not running Wikipedia. Information wants to be free, but this man's family and friends want him to come home safely. One of those is more important.
Anarchy is a slippery slope as well, as this case illustrates.
Parent
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think this case is the beginning of any of a slippery slope, especially since all involved were private groups. Maybe it is a bit questionable that Jimbo was involved, but he's been involved in a lot worse which no one ever talks about. What unnerves me is people who think like you, making these sort of statements without seeing how they have already been abused. If there is a slippery slope, you're sliding down it.
Also, anarchy is NOT a slippery slope. Everything in history points to the idea that from anarchy arises order. The existence of government today points to that fact, unless you're religious. That is why it is far better to err on the side of anarchy than to err on the side of fascism.
Parent
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom of speech does not include the right to force others to say what you want them to say. Freedom of speech includes the right to not speak.
So maybe the suppression of facts is a "lie", but that's not immoral by itself especially since the purpose was to protect a life. Absolutely no one out there has a vested in interest in getting this information and no one is harmed by not having this information. And of course as we see, the information is now available, it was merely delayed.
Also, last I checked, Wikipedia is not a news outlet anyway. Why should they "report" this information? Neither is it a public bulletin board.
Parent
Re:the blackout was a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
NO!
CENSORSHIP can be done by ANYBODY.
It is just usually more legal if done by a private organization.
Parent
Double Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
There should be standards. Either kidnapping stories are reported widely, or they are not. I see no reason for journalists to have lives of more inherent value than anyone else. This would be like doctors giving preferential treatment to other doctors (eg. less waiting time in countries with socialized medicine) or teachers distributing textbooks only to the children of other teachers. This is not to say that it doesn't happen, but it is profoundly wrong.
Re:Double Standard (Score:4, Insightful)
In many cases, journalists are taken specifically for their connection to the media. Whereas other kidnapping may simply be for intimidation or money, a journalist is captured for their perceived value in communicating with the outside world. Infomation blackout is also more protection for not just that journalist, but other reporters in that region.
While the "media fraternity" is a very real aspect of the business -as every profession gives a certain amount of preference to its own members- I don't think its fair to say that they ignore other valuable stories related to hostage taking or kidnapping. However, the struggle to suppress information plays out in a more public forum (the terrorist trying to spread his message and the media and law enforcement trying to get their reporter back) than if the terrorists/kidnappers were talking to a private individual or family. Which is exactly what this story is about.
Does Wikipedia have a certain policy regarding "news" vs. matters of record that are not "news"? I haven't read Wikipedia's article policy completely but it seems like now would be a good time to try and create a buffer between news reporting and the collection of historical fact (as close as one can be). Wikipedia's goal is to be comprehensive, not exactly the most immediate source of information. Plus it would cut down on people trying to be the "Firstie" to report major news in a secondary outlet like an encyclopedia.
Parent
Re:Double Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
News will blackout information for all sorts of reasons. You never hear the names of rape victims or child criminals/victims either.
But it's "never hear the names of rape victims", not "do hear the names of rape victims, unless they're related to someone who works at a newspaper - then we hold their name secret". I don't think people would be having as much of a problem with this if it was the principle of "never report the name of a kidnapping victim". The "double standard" referred to in the subject line is the impression that a newspaper will happily report on a soldier, doctor, or politician which gets kidnapped, but screams bloody murder if someone else reports that a journalist is in the same situation.
I also don't think people have a problem with any individual news site deciding that some shlub reporter from the Times getting kidnapped shouldn't be reported on, it's when they start to force third parties like Wikipedia to kowtow to their wishes that people start to get upset.
Parent
Hypocrites (Score:5, Insightful)
They'd gladly blab about a kidnapping if it wasn't one of their own. It does, after all, sell newspapers.
Re:Hypocrites (Score:5, Informative)
The New York Times gladly hid behind the 1st Amendment and blabbed about a 100% legal, effective and yet secret means to track terrorist money around the globe, yet clammed up when it was their hide on the line.
Hypocrites.
Parent
newspapers capable and willing to censor (Score:5, Insightful)
What kind of bullshit argument is it that news coverage would increase the reporter's value and make negotiations more difficult? When do newspapers show that kind of consideration to other people? Do they keep other people out of the news because it inconveniences them or puts the at risk? Safety trumps freedom of speech? Since when? Only when one reporter is doing something for another, apparently.
What this story really shows again is that newspapers are corrupt: they are capable of censoring the news, and they will do so if it benefits the companies or the people working there. Furthermore, they have enough leverage to influence sites like Wikipedia.
We need to find ways of disseminating the news free from censorship, whether by Iranian madmen or self-serving American news organizations.
I have no problem with this (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe strongly in free speech, especially on Wikipedia (I am a semi-active editor there). But this wasn't really Wikipedia's domain. Wikipedia is not a newspaper (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper [wikipedia.org]). It's not the job of Wikipedia to report on someone's life until reliable news sources have already done so. In other words, Wikipedia should never contain breaking news.
Re:I have no problem with this (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama was listed on Wikipedia as "sworn in" two minutes after he took the oath of office.
In an event that was broadcast live by every possible medium and media outlet...
Parent
This was not censorship. (Score:4, Insightful)
Just so you guys have the facts on this one, the closest definition of 'censorship that pertains to this subject can be found under 'censor'
2. a.2.a transf. One who exercises official or officious supervision over morals and conduct.
This doesn't fall under that category, or any similar category. The Times wasn't conspiring to hide the information for their benefit, or because of judgement as to it's morality or offensiveness. They did it to protect the reporter.
As a citizen, or NYT subscriber, or Wikipedia contributor, you have no right as to the status of the reporters' personal situation. Just because something has occurred and someone knows doesn't mean wikipedia is on the hook to allow it to be published. This is not a moral, heretical, or an issue of the reporters' conduct.
I'll say it slowly:
absolutely.
not.
censorship.
Re:This was not censorship. (Score:5, Insightful)
A rose by any other name.....
No matter what you call it, Wikipedia lied about facts and went about removing anything that went against that. Facts are facts, the reporter was obviously notable enough before the kidnapping to have a wikipedia page, the fact that he was kidnapped is relevant and should be beyond wikipedia's purview to alter.
Two things really stick out out me in this story.
#1, news sources would almost never do this for a non-journalist
#2 Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of suppressing indisputable facts for anyone.
Parent
Re:This was not censorship. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Apples and oranges. A reporter being held hostage might benefit from having the information suppressed, an oxfam worker might benefit more from having the information broadcast as their position would garner sympathy.
2. You don't have the right to know all indisputable facts. I don't have the right to know your sexual orientation, what medication you may or may not use, who you voted for in the presidential election, where you live, your social security number or your bank account PIN.
Your friends might know these indisputable facts but is it their duty to put it up on wikipedia?
I find it comical that people assume everyone else's business is theirs.. Decry the right to privacy for your personal information, and point fingers at those trying to protect the privacy rights of others.
Parent
Wish the NYT had more concern about non-employees (Score:5, Informative)
Obviously, everyone is glad Rodheis home safely. Neverthess, many around the blogosphere have pointed out that the Times has a two-faced approach to this kind of secrecy.
Take, for example, the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, which the Times did a big expose of back in '06. There were absolutely no questions that this program was
Yet that didn't stop the Times from announcing to every terrorist from Marrakech to Jakarta all about it, how to avoid getting caught by it, etc.
Again, there is no dispute that this program was working; in other words, nailing terrorists -> saving civilian lives. Too bad the lives it was saving weren't those of Times employees!
PS Good overview here [nationalreview.com], by the guy who led the Justice Department's prosecution against the 1993 World Trade Center bombers.
- AJ
Just thought I'd ask. (Score:5, Interesting)
First thing I thought of... (Score:5, Funny)
I have this weird picture stuck in my head - a bearded mullah, sitting at his computer somewhere in Pakistan, complaining "WHY aren't these Wikipedia edits STICKING?!"
To keep him alive. (Score:5, Insightful)
If Rohde became a cause celebre, the people holding him might be tempted to do a Daniel Pearl style execution for the publicity.
Parent
Re:To keep him alive. (Score:5, Insightful)
If Rohde became a cause celebre, the people holding him might be tempted to do a Daniel Pearl style execution for the publicity.
That may very well be the case -- but your rationale is not specific to kidnapped journalists. The real question here, which should be addressed to both Wikipedia and the New York Times is: why censor news regarding this particular kidnapping, when your general policy is the exact opposite, of detailed reporting on every kidnapping case you hear about?
I find the news of Mr. Wales officially participating in the cover-up quite disturbing. Wikimedia foundation simply does not have the resources to police Wikipedia in this way for all alleged victims of crime. Thus, why were Wikipedia resources spent on this particular case?
Parent
Re:To keep him alive. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, while I'm not sure it's applicable to this incident, I do remember a few years back when news and details about a Canadian aid worker who was kidnapped was kept quiet. In that particular case, it was because he had a husband back home waiting for him... They decided that it was better to suppress the information than risk the taliban beheading him for no reason other than he was gay.
It could also have been because they didn't want him to become a celebrity. They may have felt that he was kidnapped in the hopes of making headlines, and getting publicity for their cause. Deny them that publicity, and eventually they might give up and let him go.
*shrugs* we don't know at the moment, and we may never know, but there's two very good reasons to suppress the information.
Parent
Re:To keep him alive. (Score:5, Insightful)
In the past tense it would be interesting to hear that it had happened but I see no real reason to be incensed that you didn't hear about it while it was happening.
I assume that the Times requested this and from time to time it is the humanitarian thing to do. You have no "right" to know, I hate it when the public's "right" to know is touted because it is a fiction at best.
Parent
Re:To keep him alive. (Score:5, Insightful)
I would ask why we care that Wikipedia didn't print the current location and status of a reporter when it is neither germain to the rest of the information about him nor of particular immediate interest.
You seem to miss the point: this isn't about my right to "know". This is about the way Wikipedia works. The Wikimedia foundation is normally not in the business of writing an encyclopaedia. They are in the business of managing a large number of free-lance contributors who actually write the articles. When the NYT management decides not to write about something, they send all employees a memo. They don't mind the employees knowing what it's all about -- it should just stay out of the paper. Obviously Wikimedia couldn't send a memo "please don't report on this person's kidnapping". Instead, they actively edited the article to reflect their editorial judgement. This is unusual exactly because they don't normally edit the articles. They arrange for hosting, write the software, determine project-wide editorial policies and resolve disputes. But they don't actually write encyclopaedia entries. Wikipedia would never have gotten off the group if these people were the ones to write the articles, and today the project will grind to a halt if Wikimedia staff has to personally police various articles which concern various ongoing emergencies.
Again: this isn't about our right to know. This is about Wikimedia putting an effort to help this particular person, where it's clear that they cannot help everyone equally situated. It may be wise to adpot a project-wide policy: "no mention of kidnappings while they are ongoing" and leave the actual implementations to the editors and admins. It would be foolish to rely on Foundation staff to try to implement such a policy alone.
Parent
Re:To keep him alive. (Score:5, Insightful)
If none of the media were reporting the story, then how could such information in an article ever pass [[WP:V]] [wikipedia.org] ?
Wikipedia is not rumorpedia or spread-stuff-from-the-blogosphere-pedia
It's an encyclopedia, and well-documented reliable secondary sources are required for information to be posted.
Original research is unacceptable on WP, as a matter of course.
And so is anything that doesn't have a source with a good reputation for fact checking to back it up.
When it comes to articles about living people, the policies are very strict; uncited information that might have some negative aspect (e.g. about alleged kidnappers or kidnapping), must be removed unless cited.
Parent
Re:To keep him alive. (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, the right response is to that assertion is to find a second reliable source, if the report is that controversial, and valuable, there should be multiple solid sources to back it up, under normal circumstances.
The posting of one news agency could be in error.
Parent
Re:To keep him alive. (Score:5, Insightful)
So, it was brought to their attention and they were asked to help. They were able to help so they did. It disgusts me that some people think that is somehow an injustice.
Parent
Re:To keep him alive. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:To keep him alive. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:To keep him alive. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then the answer is "because they didn't want to give the Taliban what it was trying to get." God you idiots can be so pedantic. There is nothing to see here; move along.
Parent
Re:To keep him alive. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to agree with AC parent here. Although we don't necessarily know what the Taliban wanted, the act of keeping his profile low certainly didn't result in a bad ending for him. If news broke out that he had been captured, and there were a public outcry, we don't know what would have happened.
In this case, there was benevolent intent behind the censorship. I have no problem with that sort of action as long as the people are really trying to do the right thing. If they were covering it up to cover their own arses, then I'd certainly have a problem. I do find it very funny that the user in Florida who continuously tried to re-post the story thought he was being blocked because he wasn't believed. If he had some sort of user information, they could've told him, "Hey, this is really sensitive, let it go for now" a long time ago...
I guess I'm more for having people identify themselves when submitting "information" so it can be verified. But yes, I also understand the need for some info to be anonymous.
Parent
Re:To keep him alive. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a little too wishy washy for me. Censors universally think they're acting for the public good.
I happen to think that in this particular case the censorship was acceptable, but I need a better justification than (a)see it worked out ok, or (b) they were trying to do the right thing.
I'd state the justification more like this: When at least one person's life is likely to be put in danger directly resulting from publication, and when the material censored doesn't have substantial cultural significance, media outlets are not ethically required to report the story, but neither are they ethically obligated to repress the story.
Parent
Re:To keep him alive. (Score:5, Insightful)
I see nothing to that effect anywhere, and even the taliban is smart enough to know: you don't kidnap a REPORTER if your intent is to keep it silent. They wanted this to be a huge news story.
And conversely, if the Taliban kidnaps a random foreigner, they're a lot less likely to behead him and post it on YouTube if they don't know that he's actually a well known reporter. They're trying for maximum exposure and shock response per unit effort. A media storm centred on the guy would play right into their hands.
So yes, if the news had got out the terrorists would have won. Literally.
Parent
Re:To keep him alive. (Score:5, Funny)
Degrees (F)? - Carefull your bias toward the US audience is showing.
Parent