Here's a transcript of an interview with The New York Times executive editor about holding the secret raid story. It's taken from the website of a new (US) national morning news radio described as "a unique partnership of global news leaders... a co-production of Public Radio International and WNYC Radio in collaboration with the BBC World Service, the New York Times and WGBH Boston." The question that comes to my mind: objectivity. Can a news report produced in part by The New York Times be objective in reporting on The New York Times
This Q&A gives some insight into the process and thinking that went on in making the decision to hold the story for reasons of national security. Please note that the executive editor wasn't the one who decided. It was the journalist in charge of the newspaper's Washington bureau. Note also that it was the newspaper that decided what was of "obvious public interest."
More importantly, note that it wasn't the White House that initiated holding the story. The newspaper called the government looking for comment, not confirmation. The Times had the story "nailed down."
It sounds as though the White House hadn't even considered press coverage. White House response: "Well, hold on for a second." Are we exchanging the White Dog function for press self-censorship?
What do you think of what Keller says about the decision to hold -- and then publish -- the secret raid story?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I totally agree with Keller by holding the story till it was safe to publish. I personally think that journalists or newspapers should consider the effects of news to the public before running any stories, especially those that concern safety and security. I think by being a journalist you will have to deal by double edged decisions, and you will have to make tough choices that will influence a whole nation. For example, in the UAE, you don’t hear a lot of news about extreme crimes that happens within the society. I think the government wants to keep people feeling safe and stable, because nothing can make chaos more than fear, and UAE don’t want that! I know that people have the right to know the answers of their questions but some people just can’t handle a certain type of news, and that could affect not only a person’s life but a whole society. If I was in Keller’s position, I would have done the same by holding the story till it is safe out there to publish it and reveal it to the public.
I agree too with Keller, the journalist should make sure that he or she have the truth-worthy news and he or she should know when to release this news. They should think if its will be positive or negative on the public in order on how they will be react after getting this news.
Killer is true for holding the story because publish this news make people fear so it is important to publish this news when we think it is safe to publish and available of accurate and trust information
Keller has the right to hold the story. actually, people like to create a buzz and add some informations that are false to stories. for that i think when keller holds the story he is protecting it from wrong informations to be added.
Post a Comment