seven silent months

8/13/2019 Seven Silent Months

1/15

Barrons 1

Genevieve BarronsHist 403November 29, 2011

SEVENSILENT MONTHS Examining the coverage of the Rohde kidnapping and subsequent blackout by

Wikipedia and The New York Times

On November 10, 2008, New York Times reporter David Rohde, along with his

translator Tahir Ludin and driver Asadullah Managal, were kidnapped by members of the

Taliban outside Kabul, Afghanistan. i Not until their escape on June 20, 2009 more than seven

months later was the story made public. This prolonged media silence was due, not to a lack

of knowledge about their whereabouts, but to a request made by The New York Times , on

behalf of Rohdes family, to major media outlets around the world that their kidnapping be

kept silent so as to improve their chances of survival. The New York Times asked these media

outlets to avoid reporting the story as, according to executive editor Bill Keller, going public

could increase the danger to David and the other hostages. ii Despite the number of media

outlets that were aware of the kidnapping allegedly over forty knew that Rohde was

missing iiithe blackout essentially held until he and his translator escaped. The widespread

nature of this censorship, and its durability over a period of months, has led to questions

about whether The New York Times had the right to conceal evidence of the kidnapping, if it

has made reporting on future kidnappings more difficult, and whether it creates a double

standard for journalists. The coverage of the Rohdes kidnapping presents a fascinating

picture of modern media, complicating many of our ideas about the power of the Internet, and

suggests that even in this age of social media and twenty-four hour news cycles mass

censorship is still possible. Ultimately, the media blackout is significant as it reflects a set of

rules that are developing for press to deal with new kinds of conflict, particularly terrorism,

and the different kinds of reporting that these require.

This essay will focus on the coverage or more to the point, lack thereof by The New

York Times and Wikipedia of Rohdes kidnapping . It will rely entirely on primary sources, as


2/15

Barrons 2

due to the relatively recent nature of the events no scholarly papers on the topic have yet

been published. I have chosen these two media sources because of their centrality to the case

at hand, along with the relatively high level of debate surrounding their controversial decision

to withhold information about the events from the public. The New York Times not only self-censored, but also used their clout in the world of international journalism in order to ensure

that the media blackout was maintained. Some commentators have raised questions about

whether The New York Times would have been willing to go along with this plan if it had not

been one of their own reporters who was involved, and indeed precedent suggests that they

would not. One of the outlets they asked to self-censor was Wikipedia . This was a particularly

unusual and difficult task as Wikipedia is a key-example of crowd-sourced, new media meaning that, unlike a traditional news website, any one can update it. Censoring the website

without drawing attention to what was happening was difficult, and its success ultimately

raises question about the reliability of Wikipedia and how free it actually is. iv As almost no

documents exist from the time period of the actual blackout, this essay will focus on Wikipedia

and New York Times articles, press releases and interviews published in response to the

revelation of the kidnapping and blackout in and after June 2009. In order to consider theinvolvement of these two media sources from a critical perspective, and in some cases

question the credibility of what was reported, I will also rely on a diverse variety of other

primary sources many of them which conflict with the official story told by The New York

Times and Wikipedia including other newspapers, websites and blogs, all of whom published

stories about the kidnapping, blackout and subsequent coverage.

Media strategies: when journalists become the victims of terrorism

Kidnapping has long been a popular tactic of terrorist groups, as a mechanism for

securing both attention and finances for their particular cause. v Since the American invasion

in 2001, Afghanistan has become a high-risk kidnap zone, with an average of one kidnapping

per week, although some sources suspect that the vast majority of abductions (particularly


3/15

Barrons 3

those of local people) go unreported. vi Most kidnappings are conducted by the Taliban or local

traditional warlords, who target foreign and local aid workers, including reporters. vii

According to the Committee to Protect Journalists , 21 reporters have been killed in Afghanistan

since 2001 and many more kidnapped, often along with their local translators and drivers.The media strategies that have been pursued in the case of these abductions vary

tremendously. Undoubtedly, this history of kidnappings informed the decision by Rohdes

family and The New York Times to remain silent, and to encourage other news outlets to do the

same. In the aftermath of his escape, numerous commentators drew parallels between the

Rohde case and Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was kidnapped in Iraq in

2002.viii

The Journal went public with the story and nine days after being abducted Pearl wasbeheaded by his captors. ix Whether the widespread publicity of the case had any role in his

death is still a matter of debate. While he was certainly not the first reporter to be kidnapped

or killed, his death was repeatedly cited by those involved with the Rohde kidnapping as

support for the decision of The New York Times .x However, not all kidnappings that receive

media coverage end in disaster. For example, when Fox News reporter Steve Centanni was

kidnapped in Gaza that same year, the network broadcast tape of his brother pleading for hisrelease, which was shortly secured. xi On the other hand, a blackout strategy has been pursued

before, but typically to more limited success. When Jill Carroll of The Christian Science Monitor

was abducted in Baghdad in 2006, her family and the newspaper attempted to impose a media

blackout. However, it lasted for only two days, in part because of her captors desire for

publicity they released numerous videos to Arab TV stations. The Monitor was later

criticized for even attempting to impose such censorship. Carroll was released three months

later. xii The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was much more successful in pursuing a

media blackout, when reporter Melissa Fung was abducted in Afghanistan in 2008. Fung was

kidnapped two days before a federal election, and the CBC was worried that the incident

would be enflamed by political rhetoric at home. xiii While the story received some attention


4/15

Barrons 4

overseas, most Canadian news outlets honored the CBC s wishes. The blackout lasted a month

until she was released. xiv In comparison, what was unique, and for some unsettling, about the

Rohde case was the breadth and duration of the blackout.

Ultimately, there is no hard and fast rule as to whether it is better for the kidnappedjournalist if their story is brought to the attention of the public or censored nor is there any

clear indication that without the media blackout Rohde would have been killed. xv However,

there does seem to be an increasing trend towards pursuing media blackouts in these sorts of

cases. Sometimes this decision is not left up to the journalists employer or family, as the

kidnappers themselves often approach the press. Common wisdom suggests that the Internet

and in particular new forms of social media have made it extremely difficult to limit thespread of these stories geographically. The Rohde kidnapping is significant in that The New

York Times was able to do just that.

The blackout: a method for combatting terrorism?

Rohde was kidnapped on November 10, and while there was some limited

international coverage, particularly in the blogosphere and in Italy and Afghanistan, The New

York Times was very quick to ask that media silence be maintained.xvi

According to Rohdeswife, Kristen Mulvihill, she was advised by the F.B.I. along with other terrorism experts to

request that The New York Times keep a lid on it. xvii Executive editor, Bill Keller, along with

the rest of the staff agreed to honor the fami lys wishes. T he blackout was enforced in a fairly

ad hoc way. xviii Keller and other executives called editors at major papers and websites,

explained the situation, and asked them not to make the kidnapping public. Everyone appears

to have agreed, as no major news source published the story until Rohdes escape d. For what

it is worth, in commentary of the blackout after Rohdes had escaped several editors of other

news outlets noted that The New York Times was not heavy handed in demanding silence. xix

Throughout the duration on the blackout, both the newspaper and the family continued to


5/15

Barrons 5

debate the advisability of this self-censorship and the paper in fact had a version of the story

ready to run in case they changed their mind or another news outlet published it. xx

Despite the overall success of the blackout, there were, however, two new media

outlets where the story sporadically showed up over the next seven months: blogs andWikipedia . Indeed, initially several international news outlets broke the story, including the

Chinese state news service Xinhua , but all of these stories were taken down almost

immediately at the request of The New York Times .xxi Numerous blogs knew about the story

including Infidels are Cool , Little Green Footballs , the Jawa Report and Political Insomaniac. xxii

As these blogs operate largely outside of the mainstream media, and in some cases do not

choose to follow a journalist s code of ethics, it proved more difficult for The New York Timesto both contact these outlets and to ensure their compliance. Some bloggers chose to post the

story, including A Battlefield Tourist and Michael Yon , both of which are interestingly run by

former members of the American military. According to Yon there's no way I would've done

that if I thought it increased his jeopardy. xxiii However, both were eventually contacted by

The New York Times and agreed to take down their posts. xxiv

By far the hardest place to maintain the blackout was Wikipedia , as the site functionson the principle that anyone can write and make changes to articles . During the first few days

of the blackout, New York Times reporters and friends of Rohde took it upon themselves to

keep any mention of the kidnapping off of Rohdes Wikipedia page. On November 12, two days

after he was kidnapp ed, Rohdes friend Michael Moss began editing the page, along with

Rohdes New York Times profile, in order to make Rohdes seem particularly sympathetic

towards Muslims. xxv The page history shows that someone working under the username

Michaeljones he used a pseudynom in order to hide his identity and connection with The

New York Times xxviadded lines like: His work exposed the slaughter of 8,000 Muslim men

and boys in the region of Srebenica, and was hailed as some of the finest reporting on human

rights abuses ever, xxvii and At the New York Times, he has written about peacekeeping


6/15

Barrons 6

efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he reported on the hardships endured by men who had

been detained and released from the U.S. military detention center at Guantanamo Bay,

Cuba. xxviii He also removed the word Christian from Christian Science Monitor one of

Rohdes previous employers. According to Moss, it is apparently common for kidnappers toinvestigate those they have abducted on the Internet to determine how much they might be

worth. xxix Those involved in the Rohdes case hoped that the kidnappers would release Rohde

if they realized he was not a spy and in no way connected to the American occupation

indeed, that he was a friend of Islam. xxx

On November 13 th at 19:57 an anonymous editor updated Rohdes page to add he was

kidnapped in November 2008 along with his driver and interpreter and is still missing, citingan Afghan media outlet called Pajhwok Afghan News .xxxi At 21:22, Michaeljones deleted these

editions. At 23:11 the anonymous editor reverted to the version that included the sentence

about the kidnapping, adding a note: I have provided proof. Please dont remove sourced

stuff. xxxii An editing war ensued. Multiple editors, presumably all New York Times reporters

and friends of Rohde, got involved to delete any comments pertaining to the kidnapping. The

anonymous editor did not give up however. Before midnight the page was edited nine moretimes.

At 23:54 the page was frozen, which means that no one except high-level Wikipedia

editors could alter it. After the story broke in June, it was revealed that Catherine J. Mathis,

chief spokeswoman of The New York Times Company, had contacted Jimmy Wales, co-founder

of Wikipedia, to ask for help. xxxiii The anonymous editor seemed unlikely to give up his

attempts to edit the page and include the information about the kidnapping. Due to the nature

of the technology, neither The New York Times nor Wikipedia had any ability to reach out to

this individual and ask them to desist or explain the situation. The page was given a

protected status and frozen to include the positive portrayal of Rohdes work and exclude

any mention of kidnapping until December 1, 2008. xxxiv Jimmy Wales noted later that he was


7/15

Barrons 7

careful to not edit the page himself as he knew that his actions are often watched throughout

the Wikipedia community. xxxv

Over the next several months the page was periodically frozen and unfrozen, as

Wikipedia editors had to be careful not to draw attention to the page by freezing it for toolong. xxxvi Often, when the page was unfrozen, it was edited by the same anonymous user (as

indicated by their IP address), with increasingly angry comments like We can do this months.

I don't give a shit that this is on your watch-list. Not until June 20, when The New York Times

broke the story of Rohdes escape , did Jimmy Wales, under the username Jimbo Wales,

officially and permanently unfreeze the page. The anonymous user commented one final time:

Is this enough proof you fucking retards? I was right. You were WRONG. :P. There are as such several trends that can be distilled from these events. First, although

we tend to see the Internet as transcending geographic borders, The New York Times managed

to limit the spread of this story geographically. xxxvii All of the conventional media outlets that

initially posted this story were located outside of North America, and largely with the

exception of the Italian press outside of Western news sources. Second, The New York Times

apparently had very little trouble in getting conventional media outlets to go along with theblackout in contrast to the experience of The Christian Science Monitor when Jill Carroll was

kidnapped. Third, the biggest challenge was new forms of media including blogs and

Wikipedia . However, it seems that while some blogs did go ahead and post the story initially,

most bloggers were willing to take the story down when approached directly by The New York

Times . Even those stories that stayed up never attracted any real attention. Finally, the media

source that provided the biggest challenge was Wikipedia as, due to its crowd-sourced nature.

However, even it was relatively quickly and effectively censored.

Motivations and implications : what else are we not being told?

On June 20, upon learning of Rohdes escape The New York Times contacted Wales to

have him unfreeze the Wikipedia page and then published a story : Times Reporter Escapes


8/15

Barrons 8

Taliban After 7 Months. xxxviii The revelations created something of a firestorm in the

journalism community, as numerous media outlets weighed in to defend their decision to go

along with the blackout or to criticize the actions of The New York Times in some regard. For

the most part, Rohde and his family remained silent, and Bill Keller was the main New YorkTimes representative to speak publically. While Keller defended the decision of the The New

York Times , he refused to go into any details about the actual kidnapping, claiming Were not

going to talk about strategy, tactics, deliberations, advice we got, any of that even to correct

the abundant misinformation now in circulation. People are free to write what they want, but

we believe such stories only raise the level of danger for our reporters in the field, who

alrea dy have enough risk to contend with.xxxix

The New York Times was also especially carefulto not use the word censorship referring instead to media silence and the media

blackout.

Since these revelations, numerous commentators have raised questions about the

motivations behind The New York Times decision to pursue a blackout. Two possible

rationales have emerged. The first is the justification provided publically by The New York

Times itself: namely, tha t Rohdes life would be in increased danger if the story was madepublic. xl According to Keller, the kidnappers initially indicated that publicity would be

dangerous for Rohde. xli Both Keller and New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff have

suggested that if Rohde was written about in Western newspapers, his kidnappers might have

killed him in order to make an example of him. xlii As Keller later said in an interview:

Basically the arguments for silence were that publicity would greatly enhance Davids

perceived value to the kidnappers, that it could set in motion rumors and misinformation (e.g.,

conspiracy theories that David was a spy), that it would open up a confusion of false leads and

faux intermediaries, that it would mean his distraught family was bombarded with media

attention, and that, in any case, the Taliban is not famous for being responsive to world

opinion. xliii In this light, the blackout was a necessary measure to save his life.


9/15

Barrons 9

The other slightly more nefarious reason, which some commentators who have taken a

critical stance against the decision of The New York Times have raised, is that placing a

spotlight on Rohde could have increased his ransom price the kidnappers initially asked for

$25 million and the release of 15 Taliban prisoners.xliv

The implication is that The New YorkTimes wanted to limit publicity to keep the amount of money they might have had to pay as

low as possible. This possibility was raised by Rohde himself, as repeated by Keller: I talked

to him yesterday, and, unprompted, he said the decision to keep quiet was the right one. The

kidnappers were obsessed with his potential value as a commodity, and a media furor would

have made it much harder to secure his release. xlv According to an anonymous source, cited

in a New York Magazine article about the kidnapping: we were never really worried that theywould kill him. This wasnt Al Qaeda. They were businessmen. xlvi The fact that the kidnappers

did not initially go public seems to also corroborate this interpretation as they appear to have

been more interested in the possible financial pay off than the publicity.

Ultimately, Rohde and his translator escaped, largely without external help although

there has been some suggestion that their guards may have been bribed to look the other

way.xlvii

Whether or not the motivations of The New York Times were financial or moral ormore likely, a combination of the two these events highlight the every increasing crossover

between terrorism and organized crime in conflict zones like Afghanistan. Rohdes kidnappers,

members of the Taliban, seem to have been more interested in using him for financial gain

than to terrorize anyone, but if the negotiations had soured or The New York Times had

refused to pay a ransom (they did not ultimately end up paying anything, but they kept the

possibility on the table throughout) the kidnappers might have decided to execute Rohde

instead. There continue to be several news outlets, however, that claim to have been misled as

to the motivations of The New York Times .xlviii

Beyond issues of motivation, critics of The New York Times have accused the paper of

hypocrisy and abandoning their own journalistic ethics by employing a double standard. As


10/15

Barrons 10

Katia Bachko of the Columbia Journalism Review told Keller, From the Times coverage it

seems that the decision to keep the kidnapping private was guided in part by the fact that the

victim was an employee of the paper. xlix Keller responded that the paper had honored

blackout requests for other individuals in the past, but other news sources were quick to pointout that throughout the duration of Rohdes kidnapping, The New York Times had published

articles on several aid workers being kidnapped in Afghanistan, probably not specifically

ignoring blackout requests, but certainly not working with the various governments and

agencies that were involved to determine what was best for the victims. l Kelly McBride, a

professor Ethics at the Poynter Institute, became one of the most outspoken critics of the

blackout. She suggests that The New York Times has made the job of every free journalist inthe world much harder. li She points out that Rohdes driver did not escape along with Rohde

and his translator, and yet The New York Times published the story immediately, possibly

endangering the life of the driver, and perhaps implying that an American life is worth more

than an Afghani one. lii

Ultimately McBride and Matthew Ingram of the Nieman Journalism Lab , both of whom

are academics in the area of journalism ethics, argue the decision undermines the credibilityof media outlets everywhere. They raise the possibility that by keeping the story silent, news

agencies jeopardized the safety of other reporters and citizens in the region. Greg Mitchell, of

Editor and Publisher , responded to this charge noting that they had considered the possibility,

but the region is one that very few people go to. liii Both McBride and Ingram suggest that,

whatever the possible dange r to Rohdes life, the negative impact of the blackout was greater.

They raise an important question: what else are we not being told? What else has been

deemed of such great importance that it must be kept silent?

Once the full involvement of Wikipedia became apparent The New York Times

published an article on June 28, called Keeping News of Kidnapping off Wikipedia Wales

began to face similar questions. He provided a rather more candid answer to the question of


11/15

Barrons 11

double standards, arguing that they would do the same thing for a reporter from the other end

of the ideological spectrum like Fox , but also noting that on the other hand, there is this

question of the media reports quite aggressively and gleefully when some blonde teenager

gets kidnapped, and is that the right thing to do or not?liv

The decision of Wales and otherhigh level Wikipedia editors has led to serious debate in the Wikipedia community. In a series

of Wikipedia talks on news suppression and Rohdes kidnapping, users have debated the

impact of this decision on the future of Wikipedia and its independence from the mainstream

media. As one anonymous editor notes: this was an edit war, just with the power all stack ed

up on one side of the fight, the side that was trying to hide/bury the s tory. lv

Beyond these questions, some have accused Wikipedia of ignoring their own protocoland rules. Wikipedia operates according to five pillars which include Wikipedia is written

from a neutral point of view and Wikipedia is free content that anyon e can edit, use, modify

and distribute. lvi Critics are quick to point out that both Wikipedia editors and New York

Times reporters broke the rules of the site. New York Times reporters, like Michael Moss, are

guilty of what is called sockpuppeting, that i s creating and using an online identity

deceptively. They have also been accused of breaking the three revert rule,lvii

which says[that] an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether

involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24- hour period. lviii

Jimmy Wales has vigorously and vocally defended his decision, providing justification

for it under the rules of Wikipedia . He claims it was pretty easy for our volunteers to look at it

and say, well, really under the rules of Wikipedia we've never considered ourselves a wide

open free speech forum where people can post speculative things. We just look at it and we

say, well yes, there was one report here and a couple of blogs, but really its not being

repor ted anywhere else, so who knows. lix He notes, we were really helped by the fact that it

hadnt appeared in a place we would regard as a reliable source. I would have had a really

hard time with it if it had. lx In one interview he comments quite candidly that the anonymous


12/15

Barrons 12

editor who repeatedly tried to add the story "thankfully, didn't really know the right way to go

about making a stink on an admin noticeboard. The kinds of trolls who monitor my every

move to look for nefarious motives didn't know or notice." lxi As Joseph M. Reagle, an adjunct

professor of communications at New York University, suggested: Wikipedia has, over time,instituted gradually more control because of some embarrassing incidents, particularly

involving potentially libelous material, and some people get histrionic about it, proclaiming

the death of Wikipedia. But the idea of a pure openness, a pure democracy, is a nave one. lxii

Again, however, commentators like David Ardia at the Berkman Center for Internet and

Society and director of the Citizen Media Law Project raise the question: what else is

Wikipedia hiding?lxiii

Ultimately, the blackout underlines the competing obligations that media outlets have

to balance. As Bob Steele at the Poytner Institute wrote: The primary obligation to the public

is to report accurately and timely on meaningful events. If you have a journalist who is

detained or kidnapped, that will generally reach the level of newsworthiness. News

organizations also have an equal obligation to minimize harm... These are competing

obligations and loyalties.lxiv

As a final fascinating note, The New York Times publishedmultiple pieces, not only on the kidnapping but on the blackout itself, engaging in a sort of

meta-criticism. Similarly, if one looks at the Wikipedia page of David Rohde today they will see

a fairly extensive section outlining the role that website played in the blackout. In this way, the

news outlets became not only suppliers and repressors of news, but also part of the news

themselves.

Blackout: a media model for dealing with terrorism?

As Seth Finklestein of The Guardian argues: you can debate ethical implications till the

end of the day, but the most fascinating aspect is that the suppression worked which in turn

contradicts a deeply cherished belief that such events are not supposed to be possible, at least

not in Western democracies. lxv Phil Bronstein, former editor of the San Francisco Chronicle


13/15

Barrons 13

admitted to being completely shocked by the fact that it had worked. lxvi According to Greg

Mitchell of Editor and Publisher , this was the most amazing press b lackout on a major event

that [he had] ever seen lxvii Ultimately, the blackout was successful, not just in terms of

keeping the story silent, but also in achieving its desired outcome: Rohde returned home.However, to what extent the blackout created or influenced this outcome can never be

determined with total certainty. As Wales, points out, if this had not worked, and let's

imagine that Mr. Rhode had been executed by his captors, then I think there would be a lot of

pushback on all of us now, saying, gee, maybe if you had reported on this hed still be alive

today. lxviii

Terrorists have long relied on media to magnify their acts and extend their reach. Inthe age of the Internet and social media it has been become popular opinion that it is

impossible to enact censorship, if one party wants to bring the events to public attention. The

blackout, however, seems to have proved that at least under specific circumstances this is

not true. The success of the blackout highlights a different media option for responding to

terrorism. It raises the possibility that more information and more reporting is not always the

best option at least not in the short term. One could even draw a parallel between thedecision of The New York Times and the decision of the Obama administration to not release

photographs of Osama Bin Ladens body. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been

characterized by 24/7 news cycle, and terrorists have certainly learned to use this constant

media blitz successfully. It seems that news outlets are coming to the conclusion that they way

to counter acts of terrorism is not through constant reporting, but through sustained silence.

Ultimately, however, the media blackout creates more problems than it potentially

solves. It leads to important questions about free speech and what the public deserves to

know. As a method for combatting terrorism, censoring all stories that could be dangerous to

someones life, or encourage terrorism in some way, is not an op tion. It also raises the issue of

who would make these decisions. Thus, while the Rohde case provides us with an illuminating


14/15

Barrons 14

look into the world of media and reporting, its long term effects on the credibility of that

media, its possible repetition in the case of another terrorist act, and the troubling

consequences it could lead to have yet to be seen.

i Adam B. Ellick, "With a Plan and a Rope, Captives Escaped Taliban," The New York Times , June 21, 2009, accessedNovember 29, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/world/asia/22tahir.html.ii "David Rohde, Times Reporter, Escapes Taliban After 7 Months," The New York Times , June 20, 2009, accessedNovember 29, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/world/asia/21taliban.html?pagewanted=all.iii Howard Kurtz, "Media Agreed to Stay Silent on Kidnapping of Reporter David Rohde," Washington Post , June 21,2009, accessed November 29, 2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/20/AR2009062001745.html?wprss=rss_world.iv "Wikipedia." Wikipedia . Accessed November 29, 2011 .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page . v Rohde, David, and Kristen Mulvihill. A Rope and a Prayer: a Kidnapping from Two Sides . New York: Viking, 2010, xi.vi 2009 Kidnap Risk Brief: Annual report analyzing global kidnapping trends, statistics and tactics , Clayton,www.claytonconsultants.com, 13.vii 2009 Kidnap Risk Brief , 25.viii Kurtz. ix See for example: Asra Q. Nomani, How Danny Pearl Helped Save David Rohde ; Transcript, The Silent Treatment ;Matthew Ingram, Was the NYT wrong to conceal David Rohdes Kidnapping? Yes. ; Greg Mitchell, Why E&P Went AlongWith Media Blackout on Kidnapping ;x Kurtz. xi Mathew Ingram, "Was the NYT Wrong to Conceal David Rohdes Kidnapping? Yes.," Nieman Journalism Lab, July 1,2009, accessed November 29, 2011, http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/07/was-the-nyt-wrong-to-conceal-david-rohdes-kidnapping-yes/.xii Dan Murphy, "Rohde: Media Face Tough Choices in Kidnap Cases," The Christian Science Monitor, June 22, 2009,accessed November 30, 2011, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2009/0620/rohde-media-face-tough-choices-in-kidnap-cases.xiii "Media Blackouts, Hostages, Ransoms & Afghanistan." The Globe and Mail. November 11, 2008. Accessed November29, 2011 .http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/media-blackouts-hostages-ransoms-afghanistan/article721413/ .xiv Murphy. xv Ingram.xvi Seth Finkelstein, "The Moral Quandary of Involving Wikipedia in Online 'censorship'" The Guardian, July 8, 2009,accessed November 29, 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jul/08/wikipedia-censorship-seth-finkelstein.xvii Rohde and Mulvihill, 67.xviii Richard Prez-Pea, "Keeping News of David Rohde s Kidnapping Off Wikipedia," The New York Times, June 28,2009, accessed November 29, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/technology/internet/29wiki.html.xix Greg Mitchell, "Greg Mitchell: Why We Joined the Media Blackout on Kidnapping of NYT Reporter," The HuffingtonPost, June 20, 2009, accessed November 29, 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/why-we-joined-the-media-b_b_218430.html.xx Rohde and Mulvihill, 32.xxi This page is no longer available, but it was found at the web address: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-11/11/content_10341046.htmxxii

Kurtz.xxiii Kurtz.xxiv Kurtz.xxv Prez-Pea.xxvi Prez-Pea.xxvii"David S. Rohde: Page Revisions November 12 2008," Wikipedia, November 12, 2008, accessed November 29, 2011,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_S._Rohde.xxviii "David S. Rohde: Page Revisions November 12 2008."xxix Prez-Pea.xxx Rohde and Mulvihill, 94.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Pagehttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/media-blackouts-hostages-ransoms-afghanistan/article721413/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/media-blackouts-hostages-ransoms-afghanistan/article721413/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/media-blackouts-hostages-ransoms-afghanistan/article721413/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/media-blackouts-hostages-ransoms-afghanistan/article721413/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/media-blackouts-hostages-ransoms-afghanistan/article721413/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/media-blackouts-hostages-ransoms-afghanistan/article721413/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page


15/15

Barrons 15

xxxi "David S. Rohde: Page Revisions November 13 2008." Wikipedia. November 13, 2008. Accessed November 29,2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_S._Rohde . xxxii "David S. Rohde: Revision History." Wikipedia. Accessed November 29,2011 .http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_S._Rohde . xxxiii Prez-Pea.xxxiv "David S. Rohde: Revision History."xxxv Prez-Pea.xxxvi Prez-Pea.xxxvii Finklestein.xxxviii "David Rohde, Times Reporter, Escapes Taliban After 7 Months."xxxix "The Puzzle of New York 'Times' Reporter David Rohde's Dramatic Kidnapping and Escape," New York Magazine,June 22, 2008, accessed November 29, 2011, http://nymag.com/news/media/57635/.xl "David Rohde, Times Reporter, Escapes Taliban After 7 Months." xli "David Rohde, Times Reporter, Escapes Taliban After 7 Months."xlii Ingramxliii Bachko, Katia. "Keller on Rohde: "There's No Question It Was the Right Approach"" Columbia Journalism Review.June 23, 2009. Accessed November 29, 2011. http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/keller_on_rohde.php?page=all . xliv Cole.xlv Bachko.xlvi Cole.xlvii Cole.xlviii Foster Kamer, "Why Did Nobody Pick Up The David Rohde Kidnapping Story?," Gawker, June 20, 2009, accessedNovember 29, 2011, http://gawker.com/5298300/why-did-nobody-pick-up-the-david-rohde-kidnapping-story.xlix Bachko.l http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/world/asia/03iht-03kabulFW.17464965.htmlli Kelly McBride, "Journalists Cant Uphold Standard Set by News Blackout of Rohde Kidnapping," Poynter, June 23,2009, accessed November 29, 2011, http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/everyday-ethics/96473/journalists-cant-uphold-standard-set-by-news-blackout-of-rohde-kidnapping/.lii This driver did in fact survive, but was severely beaten when the escape of the other two men were discovered. Thereis, however, some question as to whether the driver was working in some capacity with the Taliban.liii Mitchell.liv "The Silent Treatment Transcript," On The Media, July 10, 2009, accessed November 29, 2011,http://www.onthemedia.org/2009/jul/10/the-silent-treatment/transcript/.lv "Wikipedia Talk: News Suppression." Wikipedia. July 1, 2009. Accessed November 30,2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:News_suppression . lvi "Wikipedia: Five Pillars," Wikipedia, accessed November 30, 2011,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars.lvii "Wikipedia: Three Revert Rule," Wikipedia, accessed November 30, 2011,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring.lviii "Wikipedia: Edit Warring." Wikipedia. Accessed November 30,2011 .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring . lix "The Silent Treatment Transcript."lx Prez-Pea.lxi Finklestein.lxii Prez-Pea.lxiii Clint Boulton, "Wales Denies Censoring Wikipedia over Journalist Rohde's Kidnapping," EWeek.com, June 30, 2009,accessed November 29, 2011, http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Messaging-and-Collaboration/Wales-Denies-Censoring-

Wikipedia-Over-Journalist-Rohdes-Kidnapping-497337/.lxiv Mitchell.lxv Finklestein.lxvi Kurtz.lxvii Mitchell.lxviii The Silent Treatment Transcript.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_S._Rohdehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_S._Rohdehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_S._Rohdehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_S._Rohdehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_S._Rohdehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_S._Rohdehttp://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/keller_on_rohde.php?page=allhttp://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/keller_on_rohde.php?page=allhttp://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/keller_on_rohde.php?page=allhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:News_suppressionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:News_suppressionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:News_suppressionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warringhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warringhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warringhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warringhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:News_suppressionhttp://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/keller_on_rohde.php?page=allhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_S._Rohdehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_S._Rohde

seven silent months

Documents