In reply to Wjhonson, here's an example of a captured reporter who
subsequently had the chance to explain how careless coverage endangered his
life.
In late 2001 Canadian journalist Ken Hechtman was in Afghanistan when the
United States invaded, and was arrested as a suspected spy. Here's the
situation he faced.
"Before the trial begins, the judge tells me to pick a name out of his hat.
"What does he win?" I asked, indicating the big, black-turbaned Talib with
the shit-eating grin. "He gets to shoot you, just as soon as we finish this
formality of a trial. Okay, let's get started!" Ya gotta love these guys and
their wacky black humour! Did I mention that my translator, a doctor from
the Malaysian refugee camp where I'd started the day, was convinced I was
guilty and never missed an opportunity to tell me or the judge so?"
Afterward they actually aimed a rifle at him and pulled the trigger, in an
effort to get him to talk. They didn't tell him the clip was empty.
Just about at the point where he thought he was persuading the authorities
that he really wasn't a spy, the news of his situation spread through the
Canadian and international press. Journal de Montréal published a fact that
put his life right back in danger: he was Jewish. The Taliban had Internet
connections; they picked up on that.
It wasn't possible for him to publish those circumstances in a reliable
source until after his release.
-Lise
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:51 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:07 PM,
stevertigo<stvrtg(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Three more points:
1) Rohde's experience in reporting the mass murder of Bosnian Muslims by
Serbian Christians may have drawn sympathy and support from Muslim
officials, including perhaps some who may have sway with the kidnappers.
Publishing details of his kidnapping in a Muslim country would have
raised
the issue of his work on behalf of human rights -
of Muslims in
particular -
and gotten significant airplay in the Muslim
context.
The NY Times presumably analyzed that, talked it over with security
professionals in government and private employ, and decided against
it. They have correspondents abroad in danger areas, and have had
them kidnapped before.
I think they know better than Wikipedians - though I do not presume
they know perfect.
2) Not publishing the story and then creating an
issue after the fact,
makes
such tactics unlikely to be successful in the
future. Tactics have the
problem of being exactly that - overt and discernible forms of movement
that
after study can be countered. That's again
assuming that these tactics
were
substantially contributive to any success in this
case.
You're assuming that terrorists and professional kidnappers in the
hinterland of Afghanistan have networks that include sophisticated
Wikipedia and web history analysis experts. This is true for some
organizations - but not many. The level of ignorance of advanced
information sources is suprising even among groups that use some
advanced high-tech tools such as websites and encrypted internet
communications. Even on topics they were acutely interested in, Al
Qaeda (who have doctors and engineers on staff) failed to gather
useful information on modern chemical and biological and nuclear
weapons. All the key info they're looking for is on the web and
searchable - they didn't have much better than random stuff pulled
from Google.
The pirates in Somalia have good communications - but poor
intelligence other than regarding shipowners.
That this was done in one case does not mean it won't work again.
Most intelligence gathering methods remain useful for quite a while
after they're generally disclosed. Government intelligence agency and
military targets harden rapidly, others tend to learn slowly.
3) Are the participating Western news orgs, just
like the previous U.S.
administration, now to consider Al Jazeera as hostile? Or perhaps as an
organization that does not follow the same professional standards that
Western news orgs claim to follow?
I don't know of anyone who feels Al Jazeera is hostile. They're
trying to be an independent, honest, neutral actor in newsgathering in
the Mideast, from a natively middle eastern perspective. They're
smart, sophisticated, and pissing just about everyone off on all
sides. Around here, that usually means they're both accurate,
zealous, and impartial.
That does not always serve US short term interests. But then, from
the US government's perspective, neither does the NY Times at times.
My hopefully enlightened perspective is that the rise of middle
eastern based honest modern newsgathering will be a major part of the
ultimate enlightened modernistic muslim refutation of the reactionary
islamic terrorists. I think Al Jazeera's staff see themselves that
way and I hope and think that they're right.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l