2009/6/29 WJhonson@aol.com
In a message dated 6/29/2009 11:42:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com ragesoss%2Bwikipedia@gmail.com writes:
It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his symbolic value if executed).>>
So we're now going to set a "higher" moral position than any other information outlet does? Because I'm pretty darn sure that they would report it, if they had a reliable source from which to do so.
Or maybe someone can point out another situation where an information outlet suppressed information of this import because it might "endanger someone's life". I'm not talking about outing secret agents here.
Will
The reporter's kidnapping was well known amongst the Western media, but was
deliberately not reported, often at the request of the New York Times. Similar situations have happened involving Canadian reporters and members of NGOs who have been kidnapped; there is usually no report until they are either released, escaped from captivity, or executed. In almost every case, the news media has been well aware of the situation and has a report ready to run once safety/death is confirmed.
Risker