[WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[stevertigo]

Four thoughts:

1) Geni's question about Pajhwok Afghan News is valid. But also Al Jazeera,*
Adnkronos, Little Green Footballs, *The Jawa Report* and *Dan Cleary,
Political Insomniac*, also apparently qualify as "unreliable sources." Or
"temporarily unreliable sources," if that's the preffered term.

A cynic though might say the rationale looks something like: 'if its a third
string newspaper from a smelly third-world country, or else the largest Arab
world-based news agency, then "its [temporarily] not a reliable source."'

What is interesting though - in Western newspaper terminology, when a
newspaper first breaks a story it is called a "scoop." They sometimes hand
out prizes for "scoops." The kind of which Rohde himself won. Maybe if
Pajhwok Afghan News got a Pulitzer out of this ordeal, for doing actual
journalism, then our hundred year old concept of journalistic integrity
might be validated.

2) The idea that media attention would raise someone's ransom value is also
a bit tendentious and the subjectives involved make it.. subjective. Did
Rohde's Pulitzer factor into it? Obviously his New York Times status was an
issue: Would a Vanity Fair reporter get the same treatment or consideration?


3) Its conceivable that if Rohde was of some unpleasant design, then his
bosses might not have not bothered with the embargo. The "young white [fe]
male" dimension might have relevance.

Thus the story is also about how their personal love for one of their valued
own helped to temporarily redefine the journalistic priorities of news
organizations around the world. Wikipedia's participation was likewise not
based in vague concepts like professionalism or "reliable sources," but out
of love for a fellow accomplished and respected person from the
English-speaking world.

Accomplished people everywhere should now feel safe that as they - out of
professional interest in human destruction - wander into dusty, hostile, and
foreign lands, their stories will be tweaked a little bit. I do understand
though that if I sent someone to Mordor - to bring back profitable reportage
or whatever - I myself might pull some strings to get them back too. I might
even shoot at Al Jazeera.*

Anyway, apparently now NYT and Wired owe Wikipedia one each.

2) Found this on the Rohde talk page:
    "Okay, [?] now blackout every kidnapping. I suggest [we also censor]
articles
    about drugs, [as] that will probably save lives too. - 89.61... "

89 makes an interesting point. There are other things that kill people and
we write about them as if they are just another thing. Most of the
paraphilias qualify - much of that category is just plain destruction and
death.  Other concepts effectively promote destructive behaviours, and there
are notions that basically reduce to 'criminalistic inconsequentialism'
("perfect crime" etc.).

-Stevertigo