Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia: "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." Wales contributed to the "sanitizing effort," which I'm frankly surprised ever worked. Isn't it surprising that no blogs picked up on this? NPR questions the ethics.
The Times wouldn't have extended this same courtesy to a kidnapping victim who wasn't a reporter... right? That's the part of it that troubles me a little.
posted by Jason at 7:52 PM on June 29, 2009 
I smell NYTime + Wikipedia screenplay in the works... fascinating.
posted by Conrad Kilroy at 1:33 AM on June 30, 2009
"Kelly McBride, who teaches ethics to journalists at the Poynter Institute, says she was 'really astounded' by the media blackout...
'I don't think we do ourselves any favors long term for our credibility when we have a total news blackout on something that's clearly of interest to the public,' she says.
I don't know where she gets the "clearly" from. To whom is it clear that releasing that information to the public to enjoy over their morning coffee is of greater value than the security - and potentially the life - of the kidnap victim?
posted by Rachel Sklar at 8:20 PM on June 30, 2009
NOTE: The commenting window has expired for this post.
