Liz Smith | 06/28/2009 11:00 pm

Liz Smith on Hiding Rohde's Kidnapping: The End Justifies the Means

In response to: What do you think of The New York Times's decision to withhold information regarding reporter David Rohde's kidnapping?

I am not going to bother to question The New York Times’s withholding of info in an effort to save their reporter’s life. Why did the public need to know more than that? When innocent lives are at stake, I think the right to know everything instantly is a little silly. I do sometimes think the end justifies the means.

Read more about: David Rohde, Kidnapping, Politics, The New York Times

4 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Yep, I agree with you and Joan on this. The public does NOT have the irrevocable "right" to know everything. That’s why there is such a thing as classified information… in this case, the press self-censored for the same reason… security, even if only to preserve one life.

By Lila Kuh on 06/29/2009 7:47 am

e-mail alert

You’re so right! The public does not need to know everything, particularly when a human life is at stake. The Times’s silence protected Rohde’s life and his family’s privacy from the media voltures.

By O E on 06/29/2009 12:02 pm

e-mail alert

When innocent lives are at stake, I think the right to know everything instantly is a little silly. I do sometimes think the end justifies the means.

I agree completely. And he is free now so their strategy apparently worked. It is impossible to say what might have happened had they handled another way.

By Deena B. on 06/30/2009 11:40 am