[anamax]

> 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.

The NYT had no problem reporting on the kidnapping of an American in Afghanistan (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/world/asia/27afghan.html) or on the abduction of an American U.N. official in Pakistan (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/world/asia/03pstan.html)

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....

[anamax]

And 4 Red Cross workers kidnapped in Afghanistan (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9906E6DA1F3EF...).

> I'm asking how they live up to their claims.

That should have been "how well", "whether" or "if".