November 02, 2009

Yon: NY Times Lying About Paying Ransom for Reporter; Endangering British Hostages

Yon tweets about the New York Times which claims they did not pay a ransom to the Taliban for the release of journalist David Rohde:

Numerous very well placed sources have told me New York Times/associates paid millions to get Rohde release....

I have been told by very close sources that ex-CIA officers helped pay off release for Rohde. I knew this while it was ongoing.

He also claims that the New York Times reporting on the movement of two British hostages in Somalia is putting their lives in danger:
Kept it all quiet for NYT. Now why are the NYT endangering British hostages in Somalia? NYT needs to shut up. They are endangering British.
The NY Times says they paid nothing other than minor bribes to help locate Rohde. Rohde himself was told by the Times that they paid no ransom.

If Yon is right then it means that Rohde's five part series detailing his escape -- an account that I praised -- was either fabricated or that Rohde was unaware that his captors had been paid off to look the other way while he escaped.

So, who do I believe: Michael Yon or the New York Times?

Let me reveal the hypocrisy of the Times. When Rohde was taken captive by the Taliban we reported it on the expectation that it was big news. A reporter friend of Rohde's -- who I took to be representing the Times -- contacted me and urged us to take down the post on Rohde's on the grounds that even mentioning his name would endanger his life.

I thought the request was stupid. But after a few back and forths and the invocation of Rohde's family, I agreed.

So, a Times' reporter: don't even mention his name because it will endanger him.

Two British tourists: not only do we mention their names but we report on their movements within Somalia.

I don't believe mentioning Rohde endangered him. In fact, I think not pressing the Taliban for his release in a public manner was a big mistake - just look at how the Sunni radicals responded to the public outcry over Jill Carrol. Neither do I think mentioning Paul and Rachel Chandler -- held hostage in Somalia -- endangers them. But the NY Times put a story kill request out on one, and on the other isn't phased one bit by reporting on the hostage situation themselves.

Hypocrisy, thy name is New York Times!


By Rusty at November 2, 2009 03:30 PM | | l digg this