Military blogs are atwitter over *Threat Matrix *blogger Bill Roggio's decision to run with the story of a journalist's kidnapping in Afghanistan.
To recap: New York Times reporter Farrell was abducted, along with his translator, Sultan Munadi, while covering the aftermath of a deadly NATO airstrike in Afghanistan's Kunduz Province. Roggio reported the kidnapping over the weekend. The Times -- which had more or less successfully kept the incident out of the headlines, much as it did during the kidnapping of David Rohde -- asked Roggio to pull the story. Roggio stuck to his guns, and kept the post live.
Farrell was freed earlier today in a rescue operation by British commandos. Munadi was killed in the raid, along with a British soldier who has not been named. Now the recriminations are flying.
Without mentioning names, Andrew Exum describes how he politely requested that the offending post be taken down over the weekend. (In the comments section, Tom Ricks also asked that the post be removed.) That provoked an angry exchange with the blogger, who argued that it was legitimate news.
Spencer Ackerman uses the occasion to reflect on his own policy, drawn in part from his experience during the David Rohde episode. "My policy is not to reveal any identifying information about kidnappings -- civilian or military -- when I hear of them, at least until some official release indicates the need for secrecy is no longer life-and-death," he wrote.
So was this a question of reporting ethics or a case of double-standards? Did the Times do the right thing -- or was Roggio in the right? DR readers can weigh in in the comments. *
*
[PHOTO: NYTimes.com]
