t's a "joyous" moment for The New York Times, said Andrew Belonsky in Gawker. British commandos have rescued Stephen Farrell, a British national and the second Times correspondent to be captured by the Taliban recently. "Keeping with their policy, the Times kept a lid on the story, lest press coverage add more zeroes to a potential ransom."
It's a "pity" the Times only appreciates the importance of secrecy in avoiding "the expenses of a dead employee," said Jay Tea in Wizbang. When the issue is publishing information about a soldier who has been captured, or the hometown of a terrorist interrogator, the Times thinks the news is fit to print. Protecting others doesn't seem to matter when it comes to selling more papers.
The Times—and most other Western news organizations—kept quiet about the kidnapping of Stephen Farrell, said Eric Schmitt in The New York Times, out of concern for his safety—as the Times did in the case of correspondent David Rohde, who escaped from the Taliban 11 weeks ago. Farrell's Afghan interpreter, Sultan Munadi, a British commando, and an Afghan woman died in the rescue raid. Afghan Prime Minister Hamid Karzai said Munadi was "killed mercilessly" by the Taliban.
THE WEEK'S AUDIOPHILE PODCASTS: LISTEN SMARTER
- The world's dumbest idea: Taxing solar energy
- Why would a young person today be religious?
- Why atheism doesn't have the upper hand over religion
- He said he was leaving. She ignored him.
- 31 TV shows to watch in 2014
- Which states get screwed worst by the Electoral College?
- Why Good Friday is so important to Christians
- 10 things you need to know today: April 18, 2014
- Israel and Russia are getting along. Have the neocons noticed?
- Why I'm a pro-life liberal
Subscribe to the Week