June 22, 2009, - 10:00 am

New York Times Supresses News For Its Safety, Not For Yours

By Debbie Schlussel
Whenever the New York Times has a scoop that, if published, will jeopardize America’s national security and the safety and lives of countless Americans, it errs on the side of . . . spilling the beans. Then, the “newspaper of record” spews some boilerplate about “the public’s right to know,” “informing public debate,” blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda.
But, when it comes to the safety of one of its own–a New York Times reporter–well, then, mum’s the word.
That’s the case with New York Times reporter David Rohde, who was captured by the Taliban and held in captivity for seven months (and escaped to freedom on Saturday). The paper was completely silent on the story. No “public’s right to know.” No “informed debate.” No “full information.” None of the usual excuses.



Instead New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller says that the paper had to put the safety of its reporter above all of those usual “interests” about which the Times always pontificates and lectures to us. That, and the fact that the stingy, money-losing NYTimes didn’t want to pay the $25 million ransom the Taliban was asking, another big news story we didn’t hear about because the Times chose to keep it under the lid for the same hypocritical reasons that it put the kabosh on the entire story.
Even more telling is that the New York Times’ buddies at Al-Jazeera, the Terrorist News Network, agreed to the New York Times’ request to also keep silent on Rohde. That should confirm what we already know about the NYTimes–that if even Al-Jazeera is willing to protect the safety of Times reporters and take orders from the New York Times, they have the same interests. Not American interests. Al-Jazeera only protects those it sees as allies of Al-Jazeera’s pan-terrorist interests.

Deciding not to report initially on reporter David Rohde’s capture by the Taliban for seven months was “an agonizing position that we revisited over and over again,” New York Times executive editor Bill Keller said Sunday.

Hmmm . . . if only the paper “agonized” like this on stories about the government tapping dangerous Islamic terrorists telephone calls from abroad, looking into their bank accounts, photos of trumped up “abuse” at Abu Ghraib, and other things that would protect 300 million Americans, not just one elitist snob whose American passport is merely a document, not any allegiance to country. The government asked the NYTimes not to print these stories, but unlike Al-Jazeera and AP (when the NYTimes asked them), the Times couldn’t care less about the safety and lives of those who don’t work for the Times.

“All along, we were told by people that probably the wisest course for David’s safety was to keep it quiet,” Keller said in an interview on CNN.

All along, the U.S. government told the New York Tiems that it was the wisest course for America’s safety to keep national security programs quiet. But the paper didn’t take the same course in those cases. And are we better for it? Not exactly.

The Times reported Saturday that Rohde escaped from seven months in captivity in Afghanistan and Pakistan by climbing over a wall on Friday.

Ah, now that the story is over, suddenly the New York Times “reports.”
Rohde was abducted Nov. 10 along with an Afghan reporter and a driver south of the Afghan capital of Kabul. The Times kept the kidnapping quiet out of concern for the men’s safety, and other media outlets, including The Associated Press, followed suit at the Times’ request.
They all band together for select members of their elitist group. But when it comes to the safety of the rest of us–the little people–well, who gives a darn?

“It was an agonizing position that we revisited over and over again,” Keller said in the CNN interview with Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz. “But I also have a responsibility for the people who work for me. I send a lot of people out into dangerous places and their security is also part of my job.”

Yup, but no responsibility for the people who are your neighbors, your customers, your readers, and your fellow countrymen. Our security not part of your concern.

Keller told Kurtz he worried at different points that the story would be leaked, such as in May when Rohde was part of the team that won a Pulitzer Prize for coverage of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Keller said Arab satellite TV station Al-Jazeera was planning a story on Rohde but agreed to hold it at the Times’ request.

Like I said, birds of a feather . . . .
New York Times . . . Safety and Security for Me, But Not For Thee.

10 Responses

Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of the government run drive by media. What hypocrites! Would to G-d that they cared as much about such security issues when it comes publishing anti-gitmo propaganda, etc.

BB on June 22, 2009 at 10:23 am

Amen. I don’t want to see this reporter endangered. But I also don’t want to see our troops endangered. If this NY Times staff was writing stories two days before D-Day in France, they would have had a banner headline: NORMANDY BEACHES PLANNED SITE OF INVASION! with maps and diagrams showing the Germans where our guys would land. They have no concept of national interest, only self interest.

fleiter on June 22, 2009 at 10:24 am

Bravo yet again for saying what needs to be said, Debbie.
I’m sure the NYT is getting all kinds of pats on the back for their so called “courage” and I’m sure you are about the only one piercing the media’s self important and hypocritical baloon.

Jeff_W on June 22, 2009 at 10:27 am

I wonder if the New York Times would have done this for military personnel? Also, I wonder how much the New York Times paid for the “escape”? We must not call it ransom.

Worry01 on June 22, 2009 at 11:02 am

treason is nothing new for this commie propaganda rag, the sulzberger/rosenderg times.they shilled for stalin,hitler,moa,ho,fido, the mullahs and every enemy we ever had.the times supported soviet spys like hiss,white,currie,greenglass,klaus fouks and the rosenbergs you name it,if they were traitors the times loved them.they vilified mc carthy because he exposed the soviet spies in the roosevelt,truman and eisenhower administrations.that the propaganda times are a bunch of anti-american traitors should surprise no one.

bruce on June 22, 2009 at 11:19 am

I don’t think the Times was always this way. For instance, I believe they knew in advance about either the “Cuban Missile Crises” or the “Bay of Pigs” invasion of Cuba (or both), but held back from printing anything at the request of the Kennedy administration.

i_am_me on June 22, 2009 at 11:24 am

New York Times: All The News That’s Not Fit To Print. (and which you don’t need to know)

NormanF on June 22, 2009 at 1:25 pm

Based on the Times’ love affair with Castro–via Herb Matthews–I really doubt that your recollection is correct.

Red Ryder on June 22, 2009 at 2:16 pm

How is not reporting his abduction protecting him?
Couldn’t they have just killed him and moved on to the next target? With media attention comes security and chances of freedom, you might get spotted by someone while being moved.
But when no one’s your gone, your in limbo. the kidnappers could have gotten pissed or impatient that they were not on the news and just killed him as being “not important enough to ransom”.
Terror only works when people know about it, terrorists need the news coverage to spread their agenda and fear.
Seems the only one being protected by a news blackout/cover up is the NYT not doing anything to get their employee back.
Also, the media will cover up for a democrat, like the cover up for Kennedy failing and losing the cuban missle crisis. Kennedy chickened out and took the missiles out of Turkey just as Russia wanted. But the media covered it up to protect “their boy” and his fantasy of Camelot to make him the “hero” who faced down the Russians, when he clearly didn’t.

ender on June 22, 2009 at 9:20 pm

“The Times reported Saturday that Rohde escaped from seven months in captivity in Afghanistan and Pakistan by climbing over a wall on Friday.”
And if you believe that, you’ll believe all the other garbage the Times prints every day!

Jack Bauer on June 23, 2009 at 2:16 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field