Posted on 06/30/2009 11:54:24 AM PDT by SloopJohnB
For seven months, The New York Times managed to keep out of the news the fact that one of its reporters, David Rohde, had been kidnapped by the Taliban.
But that was pretty straightforward compared with keeping it off Wikipedia.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
"...the idea of a pure openness, a pure democracy, is a naïve one."
Of course the Al Qaeda Times took no such precautions with classified information the release of which directly harmed our troops.
The media is loyal to the media, not the United States.
Matters of troop security, not classified.
Matters of national interest, not classified.
Matters of actual newspaper circulation figures? TOP SECRET
Matters of staff securit? TOP SECRET
Search youtube for the footage of Walace and Jennings talking about how they would not alert the military if they had advance word of an attack on US troops...
You have to wonder how much other news that they are witholding. I guess they selective decide to print things.
That is no surprise, but it is a surprise that they admit to it.
The NYet Times put Abu Ghraib on the front page for 30 consecutive days in 2004 (in their effort to unseat GWBush). In the end, it turned the public against the war and emboldened the enemy (gave jihadists justification for their war with The Great Satan).
The story of Nick Berg and the others who were kidnapped and decapitated didn’t get so much ink.
Wiki-Pedophilia!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.