"How does that compare with the interest of others in keeping the reporter alive?"
A better question is: who decides whether a given person is important enough to qualify for suppression of information? This comment over at Metafilter makes a good point:
> How does that compare with the interest of others in keeping the reporter alive?
Does it matter that the person is a reporter?
> What's the user's interest in posting the information?
US journalists are on record saying that they wouldn't help US troops avoid an ambush. CNN admitted censor its Hussein-era coverage to maintain a presence. I can go on and on about how journalists pick stories in ways that don't paint them in a very good light.
I've nothing against questioning the interest that someone has in saying something true, as long as we're going to question everyone in that situation. Deal?
If a journalist is in-place, then exposing an ambush would both endanger them and ensure that all journalists in similar situations would not be trusted by those they are embedded with.
Exposing something from the comfort of your living room is different.
The choice between limited reporting in an environment of external censorship, and a choosing not to report at all in protest, is distinct and has different tradeoffs; but generally speaking, engagement has historically been the approach that gives better results in the long term.
> If a journalist is in-place, then exposing an ambush would both endanger them and ensure that all journalists in similar situations would not be trusted by those they are embedded with.
Curiously, they gave neither reason.
> Exposing something from the comfort of your living room is different.
Same circumstance, but different media reaction. Observed differences - these weren't reporters and US newsroom vs US living room.
> but generally speaking, engagement has historically been the approach that gives better results in the long term.
Some evidence would be nice. It would be especially good if said evidence tried to look at the priority of "we're in it for us."
I'm not saying that journalists have to be altruistic or are wrong if they're not. I'm asking how they live up to their claims. If it's fair to criticize others for those failings....
"What's the user's interest in posting the information?"
It does raise an interesting point, especially given the timeframe in which the user kept trying to post that information, given it was occurring over a period of several months.
I'm purely speculating here, but I would suspect that said "anonymous" user in Florida might be getting a knock on his door from the DHS soon.
Well. The user's reaction when the news finally went mainstream - "Is this enough proof you fucking retards? I was right" - suggests to me he was just someone who got frustrated that his (correct) edits were being removed.
If his intention was to help the man's captors spread the word, that edit wouldn't serve any purpose since he had already escaped. Though I suppose you could argue he wanted to stay "in character" for his own protection...
It's certainly possible that the user may have had very good intentions by wanting to spread the word and increase publicity about a reporter being kidnapped by terrorists.
Keeping it quiet was, really, in the best interests of the Times, not the reporter.
The anonymous contributer could have just as easily thought he was being suppressed by one of the kidnapping party.
A better question is: who decides whether a given person is important enough to qualify for suppression of information? This comment over at Metafilter makes a good point:
http://www.metafilter.com/82866/Is-this-proof-enough#2627732
"If I were kidnapped by the Taliban tomorrow all the pleading in the world from my family wouldn't get the newspapers to help hide it."