| < Prev Article | Next Article > |
|---|
Michael Yon
16 November 2009
When New York Times journalist David Rohde was kidnapped last year in Afghanistan, the company engaged in a painstaking effort to squash the story. They succeeded in persuading major media who learned of the kidnapping to keep quiet. The cover-up was so good that a New York Times reporter I spoke with in December 2008, while she and I joined Secretary Gates on a trip through Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iraq and back to the United States, had not heard about the David Rohde kidnapping.
The New York Times openly agrees that publishing such articles increases the peril to the lives of hostages, yet it published details about a British couple being held hostage in Somalia, and thus increased the value of the hostages to the kidnappers.
Some months after Mr. Rohde’s kidnapping started leaking, I published a generic blurb about the case, but made sure none of the information was new.
I knew more than was included in the vignette, but chose not to release it. I did not share what sources had told me: that Taliban members were being paid large sums of money (and that money was being wasted) and that some of the efforts flowed through Dubai. I have not published any other additional information from sources. Shortly after publication, March 13, 2009, I received an e-mail that included this request from a person close to Rohde:
“The NYT has asked for a news blackout while they do what they can for David Rohde's release. All the wires and the big papers are following it. Therefore, while I'm sure you don't mean any harm, I'm not sure your post about him is helpful.”
The person who e-mailed was not from the New York Times. I removed the blub I had posted to my site. Though no new information was released, I had offered the kidnappers more coverage.
Sources continued sending reports about attempts to repatriate Rohde. I had not sought out this information. It had fallen as it usually does, like rain.
After Rohde returned to the United States and details became public, the Washington Post and others contacted me about my decisions to publish and then remove the vignette. My thoughts were that if the words risked the life of Mr. Rohde, they should not be publicized.
While reading the New York Times’ article about the British couple, I became upset, and wondered why they would implement a black-out for one hostage, but not another.
I shifted my Blackberry over to Twitter and punched out some blurbs, one of which said the following:
“Numerous very well placed sources have told me New York Times/associates paid millions to get Rohde release.”
And:
“NYT is endangering the hostages in Somalia.”
It is important to know that while tweeting those words, I was sitting on an airplane, on a research trip, for an article for the New York Times. An editor had asked for something about Afghanistan, and I chose the topic of biogas, which included trips to Cambodia, Laos, Nepal (twice), Vietnam (this week), and Afghanistan.
The New York Times is one of the best sources on Iraq and Afghanistan. Their war correspondents are the “A-Team” and that included David Rohde. I was happy to write a piece for the New York Times.
The flurry of follow-on stories that picked up on my tweets, such as those by the Huffington Post, focused on ransom for Mr. Rohde, rather than the point about the harm the New York Times’ detailed coverage could cause the hostages.
On November 2, the New York Times posted a public response:
“Several Web sites repeated Monday erroneous allegations that The New York Times had paid a ransom in the case of its reporter David Rohde, held by the Taliban for seven months.”
The New York Times didn’t mention me by name, but the story continued spreading, with people reporting that I accused the New York Times of lying. Nowhere in the “tweets” was ransom mentioned, or anything about lying. I have no evidence that the New York Times misled the public, nor did I say or imply such. The tweet about money was based on what I had been told by reliable sources. Again, this is the tweet:
“Numerous very well placed sources have told me New York Times/associates paid millions to get Rohde release.”
The New York Times rebuttal statement goes on to quote David Rohde:
“American government officials worked to free us, but they maintained their longstanding policy of not negotiating with kidnappers. They paid no ransom and exchanged no prisoners. Pakistani and Afghan officials said they also freed no prisoners and provided no money.
“Security consultants who worked on our case said cash was paid to Taliban members who said they knew our whereabouts. But the consultants said they were never able to identify or establish contact with the guards who were living with us.”
Though it didn’t address the exact amount of money, the New York Times confirmed my tweet about money by acknowledging that “cash was paid to Taliban members.” My sources have said that large sums of money went through Dubai to Pakistan, not to mention the costs paid to consultants and other expenses.
Though my statements were in line with the New York Times’ statements, other outlets continued to state that I was accusing the New York Times of “lying.” Not the case.
Chris Rovzar, who blogs at New York Magazine, was off mark when he ran this headline: Freelance War Reporter Accuses Times of Lying about Taliban Bribes.
My words said nothing about lying or bribes, and I am not a “freelance” or a “reporter,” though some of the work involves reporting. I contacted Mr. Rovzar and was pleasantly rewarded by his goodwill, candor and willingness to reexamine the words.
Moving on, the New York Times picked up on points about its coverage of the Somalia story when it published:
“Bloggers also accused The Times of hypocrisy in reporting on a British couple kidnapped by Somali pirates while keeping quiet Mr. Rohde’s kidnapping. . .
“The New York Times did not break the story of the kidnapping of Paul and Rachel Chandler, and during our reporting of it The Times consulted Christine Collett, Ms. Chandler’s sister-in-law, to ask her if the family objected to the publication of any information regarding the case. Ms. Collett, who was quoted in the story, said the family had no objection to The Times reporting on the case.”
Reporting with permission from a sister-in-law hardly makes it right. How many everyday people have experiences dealing with kidnappers? In fact, the Rohde case was the first time I realized how sensitive negotiators are to even passing acknowledgment. How many of us know that even acknowledgment of the kidnapping can lead to harm? Most people are unaware, but the New York Times knows. Did the New York Times share advice on its recent experiences when it asked Ms. Collett’s permission?
This incident aside, my respect for the New York Times’ reporting from Iraq and Afghanistan is undiminished. It offers world-class coverage, and continues to be on the reading list.
The New York Times and I simply have a difference of opinion on the hostage topic.
I believe that they have been truthful, while understandably guarded on the abduction of David Rohde. It would be wrong to bash a paper that has fielded such an outstanding team in Iraq and Afghanistan. The hostage issue is just one important issue, and all points by all parties seem to have been made and noted.
Finally, it’s time to move on from this distraction to a much larger topic: Afghanistan. Bad signals are coming from the White House.
The War in Afghanistan has truly begun. This will be a long, difficult fight that is set to eclipse anything we’ve seen in Iraq. As 2010 unfolds, my 6th year of war coverage will unfold with it. There is relatively little interest in Afghanistan by comparison to previous interest in Iraq, and so reader interest is low. Afghanistan is serious, very deadly business. Like Iraq, however, it gets pushed around as a political brawling pit while the people fighting the war are mostly forgotten. The arguments at home seem more likely to revolve around a few words from the President than the ground realities of combat here. I can bring the ground realities, but can sustain the coverage only by the graciousness of readers. Please keep that in mind. Please click…
Please consider joining my free Facebook and/or Twitter pages.
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments (25)
Subscribe to this comment's feedCorrection
...
...
...
When I heard of Mr. Rohde's release and how the Times had worked so hard to keep his kidnapping a secret and how the rest of the press fell in line, I saw the hypocrisy immediately and thought of the scores of other foreigners that have not had the same benefit that Mr. Rohde's received from his employer.
The New York Times
NYT
NYT POS
Motive
Rant over......
newmediatheory.net
...
Individual NYT Reporters vs NYT Management
As far as Afghanistan is concerned, IMVHO, we have been mucking about in that country for 7 years too long. One of the things that really gripes me about this and past administrations is that they do not come out and state their main goals about the WoT. It seems to me that we went into Afghanistan to deny our mortal enemies a base for training and for launching operations against us. What we needed to do is to use our assets in whatever appropriate way to achieve this strategic goal. We also needed to look into where the disease came from and that is Pakistan, and its tribal areas. And we also need to look at where Pakistan gets its money, and that may point back to certain Saudis. After all, The Saudis originally supported the Taliban. So we have President Bush holding hands with the Saudi king, and President Obama bowing to the Saudi King. This country's leadership is not serious about winning the war, so we pi$$ away treasure and troops. Nobody in past and present administrations ever bothers to take the time to read Sun Tzu's Art of War.
...
Trackbacked / Linked
http://www.thunderrun.us/2009/11/from-front-11162009.html
Bad Signals from White House
Horrible signals from this administration is more like it. My instincts tell me those in the White House want to extricate themselves from Iraq and Afghanistan asap so they can focus time and spending on their domestic policy initiatives. It's what the left side of the aisle know best.
NYT provides world class coverage?
This is an interesting reference from a Special Forces Team leader on how to win in Afghanistan
The hope from this hypocracy
...
Bill
But as we all know if I give you a million dollars for your fishing boat and you give me your house, wife and business do you really think I want to go fishing?
They paid one way or another..... But that is not the point of the tweet or article...NYT is two faced....they do for their own and sell newspapers when others are kidnapped, talk about integrity PLEASE!!
R James
NYT
...
What is eating you?
Michael made a truthful statement that he heard from reliable sources that money had been paid to secure R's release.
The NY Times publicly admitted that it had done so, verifying the accuracy of those sources.
Do you believe that the Times would have admitted this if Michael had not made his claim?
The Times says that it did not pay ransom and it did not pay anything to the actual jailors. Let us believe these claims.
Then how did the release take place?
Someone got money; someone ordered the jailors to release the prisoner. That person had sufficient authority or influence on the jailors to have that order obeyed.
Do you suppose that person, the one who ordered the release, got some of the millions paid? But of course no ransom was paid.
Wanna buy a bridge?
I'm sure that the U.S. could win a war in Afghanistan if we would follow Curtis Lemay's advice and simply bomb 'em back to the Stone Age (though some might argue than many in Afghanistan don't have far to go to get to the Stone Age). However, many thousands of basically uninvolved civilians would die in such a campaign. I cannot see a national government ever surviving for long in Afghanistan without the heavy presence of an outside party (i.e., the U.S.). Why should we bother?