[tjic]

If the New York Times had a policy of never publicizing kidnappings, I could respect their policy.

However, it appears that they are entirely hypocritial on this topic: I've read TONS of articles in the NYT about people being kidnapped.

I guess that the alleged danger to the captive is only a motivating force when the captive is one of their own. When it's a mere aid worker, or military contractor, or something, then the calculus changes.

Color me disgusted.

[kgrin]

Different circumstances are sometimes, well, different. Sometimes a captive's life is more in danger if the captors consider him or her valuable (like a NYT reporter). Sometimes publicizing the situation helps bring attention in a positive and helpful way (shaming the captors, forcing the government to do something, etc).

And sometimes - often, in fact - you just don't know, and you make the best judgment call you can.

I'm not claiming that the Times always acts correctly in these situations, and it's certainly worthwhile to question what the motivating factors are in whether, when and how to hold a story.

But it's also not really correct to say that all kidnapping situations are exactly the same and must be [not] publicized. They're simply not.