The NYTimes-Wikipedia whitewash
Would Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales have done this for Fox News or the Washington Times? And if he had/has, wouldn’t the New York Times editorial page blast him for colluding to suppress information from the public?
For seven months, The New York Times managed to keep out of the news the fact that one of its reporters, David Rohde, had been kidnapped by the Taliban.
But that was pretty straightforward compared with keeping it off Wikipedia.
…A dozen times, user-editors posted word of the kidnapping on Wikipedia’s page on Mr. Rohde, only to have it erased. Several times the page was frozen, preventing further editing — a convoluted game of cat-and-mouse that clearly angered the people who were trying to spread the information of the kidnapping.
Even so, details of his capture cropped up time and again, however briefly, showing how difficult it is to keep anything off the Internet — even a sentence or two about a person who is not especially famous.
The sanitizing was a team effort, led by Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, along with Wikipedia administrators and people at The Times.
Read the whole NYTimes’ piece. Note especially how a Times editor used Wikipedia (and the Times’ own website) to spread pro-Muslim propaganda about Rohde in order to secure his release — specifically, by expunging the word “Christian:”
Mr. Rohde was kidnapped in Afghanistan on Nov. 10, along with his interpreter and their driver. Two days after the kidnapping, a Wikipedia user altered the entry on Mr. Rohde to emphasize his work that could be seen as sympathetic to Muslims, like his reporting on Guantánamo, and his coverage of the Srebrenica massacre of Bosnian Muslims. Mr. Rohde won a Pulitzer Prize for his Bosnia coverage in 1996, when he worked for The Christian Science Monitor.
The Wikipedia editor in that case was Michael Moss, an investigative reporter at The Times and friend of Mr. Rohde who has written extensively about groups like Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Like many Wikipedia editors, he adopted a user name that hid his true identity.
“I knew from my jihad reporting that the captors would be very quick to get online and assess who he was and what he’d done, what his value to them might be,” he said. “I’d never edited a Wikipedia page before.”
With his editors’ blessing, Mr. Moss had already made similar changes to Mr. Rohde’s “topic page” on The Times’s Web site, and in both cases he omitted the name of Mr. Rohde’s former employer, because it contained the word Christian.
As I said before, I’m glad Rohde is safe.
But as I also said before, imagine if Wikipedia were, say, a bank cooperating in secrecy with intelligence/counterterrorism officials to help track jihadists. Why, it would be a front-page national scandal.
Have Wikipedia and the New York Times colluded on any other entries for any reason? Has Wikipedia conspired with any other media outlet/reporter to expunge accurate, relevant information that said media outlet/reporter doesn’t want published? Inquiring minds want to know.
Let the information consumer beware.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- News You Won’t See In The Mainstream Media Monday, June 29, 2009 — ExposeTheMedia.com
- Must Reads « The Augur’s Well
- Tales of Media Bias, Part Whatever : The Sundries Shack
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Double standards, New York Times, Wikipedia
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
Founding Bloggers
» Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?Doug Ross @ Journal
» 'Hope is fading fast' --- the T-ShirtDoug Ross @ Journal
» BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Boston Globe Climate Beclownment SpectacularRadio Equalizer
» Media Matters Admits Rush Didn't Make Key Racist RemarksDoug Ross @ Journal
» The CRU Climate Scam In 90 Seconds
I seem to remember an editor once screaming;
“WE DECIDE WHAT’S NEWS.”
I can distinctly recall someone…I think it was Dan Rather…in a round-table discussion some three decades ago say, “I am not an American…I am a journalist”.
‘Nuff said. That did it for me respecting the whole MSM (tho nobody called it that back then).
All Obama, All the time.
This is one reason the Wiki format is flawed. This kind of stuff doesn’t need posted on a site that is supposed to collect general information.
If anyone has the time, try reading the discussion on Barack Obama’s Wikipedia page. Some of the rationalizations for the “omissions” are quite humorous. Compare and contrast with, oh, say, Sarah Palin’s page.
That’s been true since the 2nd newspaper came out to compete with the 1st. The same is true with news channels. That’s why Jackson, and, if there is any room, Mays, takes the headlines. Someone like Gale Storm dying, I had to hear about it this morning. You have to wade through a lot of sensationalism (like some local crimes somewhere…a thousand miles from where I live) to get anything worthwhile. Once you’re through all that, you have to suffer through what Lohan or Spears did yesterday. So, it doesn’t surprise me about the whitewash on the internet. Politics and money. News is what the paper/network want it to be to support its causes and politics.
I believe Wikipedia is still figting tooth&nail to keep any mention of the Rev.G-dd–n America Wright scandal off the Pres Obama page. On the other hand, I believe they have finally admitted that just maybe, probably, could be that John Edwarda may possibly have had a momentary laspe of his otherwise fine moral judgment.
What this episode shows…in stark contrast…is that the Times knows how to suppress news–not just on its own pages, but anywhere–and is willing to do it when it serves a purpose of which the Times approves. Or values.
American interests, including even our national security, are not on their list of approved values.
Plain and simple.
NYT and Wiki-wash. Need anything more be said?
I’m sad to hear that. I remember “My Litle Margie” in reruns and, certainly, her own show after that.
There should be a basic set of journalistic/blogging rules allowing an organization to withhold info that might determine the welfare of one in deadly peril, but I’d felt better if the Times “officially” notified the FBI of these steps. During WWII the Feds got the cooperation of organized crime to whiff out and report Axis spy activity, so “faking” a journalist’s bio to save him/her is something I could live with.
James Greenidge
Queens NY
The media (or “press” as it was called then)used to be more discreet in matters of national security. Today’s media, led by the NYT, would give Hitler a heads up on D-Day.
Those who can’t handle the truth,
try to silence those who speak it.
Nothing new here, in our post-modern culture.
And therein lies the rub with this story.
It isn’t that the Times just CAN’T control itself (and others, apparently). It is that it chooses NOT TO AS A MATTER OF POLICY, except when one of their own elite is directly at risk. If it is just us, just U.S., at stake…
it is Katy, bar the door…
I guess I should feel glad Mr. Rohde’s came home safely-but as he was a Times reporter it is mostly value neutral to me.
The New York Times and the Taliban are both hostile to everything I hold dear.
I see Wikipedia as another example of the left wing rewriting history as they see it.
Wikipedia is a cesspool. Only a fool would rely upon it for information.
What??? But as a member of the public, I have a right to know, don’t I???
As for Wikipedia, don’t trust what it says. Ever. Even non-controversial, non-political entries are riddled with errors. A couple years ago, I was researching a very, very minor figure in US history. (The kind of minor figure that would never even make the dumbed down history textbooks of today.) He never married, never had children, yet his Wikipedia entry listed a wife and child. All I could figure is that someone decided to “enhance” his/her family tree. (He had some ancestors who were more illustrious than he was.)
Wikipedia is OK for trivia like the track listing of your favorite Pink Floyd album. I get real news elsewhere.
On June 29th, 2009 at 8:55 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:
Indeed.
They are, for all intents and purposes, on the same team…
It’s as if they were saying to the Muslim kidnappers, “Dudes! We’re on the same team!”
They both see America not as a force for good in the world, but rather as an oppressor that must be humbled and brought to its knees.
You know who else thinks that way?
Its not hard to notice this type of progressive subterfuge whitewash fairly often.
…birthdates, birthplaces of origin (except Obama), etc.
OT–what?? Billy Mays !!! died?
Ever heard of aiding the enemy?
How about so-called conservative sites stop linking to Stinkipedia?
Are people STILL taking wikipedia seriously on important issues – especially those that have a political charge to them?!?
I’ve considered Wikipedia a joke for the past 2-3 years now….
On June 29th, 2009 at 8:13 am, Ragspierre said:
Precisely, Wikipedia has never been trusted as a source by any worthwhile academic institution – even my own public school strictly forbids its use in student accountability portfolios.
And now thanks to it allowing the NYT to further taint its already dubious credibility with a colluded cover-up, Wikipedia has now earned its reputation of presenting adulterated half-truths and misinformation.
I have never understood why Wikipedia is even used as a reference for anything. If it can so easily be tainted and changed by whoever, why would anyone think it is a reliable source? From the very inception of that site, I have been mystified by this. It is so full of crap and lies, it should be shut down. Unfortunately, it is the kind of site that will determine what is recorded as fact in the history books of the future. The truth is slowly being erased by the Wikipedias out there.
Billy Mays died in his sleep Sunday morning after being hit on the hit by flying luggage during a rough U.S. Air landing. He was 50 I believe.
Now who’s going to sell me light switches, power augers, orange glo etc?
We still have Vince and his Sham Wow and chopper thing, but it’s just not the same.
I dunno, happyscrapper; ask lgm. He lurrvves it.
Michelle,
but, but but, If standards are good, double standards must be twice as good, right?
That’s funny.
Another Wikipedia white-washing I noticed last year:
Wikipedia whitewashed any mention of the February 28th debate.
There was a CNN Republican Debate originally scheduled for February 28th. CNN cancelled it saying McCain was the “presumptive nominee”. But McCain had not clinched the nomination, and that debate could have helped Mike Huckabee win Texas and 1 or more of the other 3 primaries held March 4th. If Huckabee had won, and continued to win other primaries, he could have prevented McCain from reaching the magic number of 1191 pledged delegates.
Huckabee didn’t have to reach 1191, he only had to prevent McCain from reaching 1191. Then it would have been a brokered convention, and we likely would have put forth a better candidate than McCain.
CNN wanted McCain to be the Republican nominee. So CNN cancelled the debate, and even though McCain was invited to a substitute debate on March 3rd, McCain chose to skip that debate and have a celebratory barbeque with CNN staff instead.
The Wikipedia, as an honest source of information, is a joke. It is simply an encyclopedia of ‘biased’ information.
What happens is that the ‘haters’ of most any subject will destroy honest information about that subject. Propaganda abounds on the wiki in ways beyond most all readers comprehension. It becomes very difficult to even see the bias in subjects the casual reader thinks they are ‘learning’ about.
If it was You or I, or any Joe Blow down the street they would not have kept quiet for 2 seconds. It would have been headline banner above the fold with anything they could find showing any perceived anti-muslim comments, writings, positions, included as a tittilating plus.
I don’t give a damn about Rohde – he chooses to go into a war zone, he takes his chances like everybody else.
Welcome to the party, pal.
The Times manages to blab every secret they can get their grubby mitts on, but I’m supposed to keep quiet when one of their guys is in the line of fire?
Like hell.
Wiki can be god for certain basic facts on non-controversial subjects, say the definition of a smoke alarm.
Sadly web searches on broad often lead to Wikipedia.
Like Rush says, it is the State Run Media.
The Media in this country has been taken over by the Rockefeller Elite using front groups like non profit foundations to hide the financial relationships.
Just look at the fact that Barry Soetoro has not had to prove he is a natural born citizen. All the state run media, including Wikipedia, have mocked and diminished the issue coining a new term dubbed “birthers” for anyone that wants the Constitution to be enforced.This despite the fact there were Congressional hearings on John McCain to determine his birth place and whether he was a natural born citizen.
Even e-bay has scrubbed 2 times a guy that says he has the original copy of the “Obama” birth certificate from Kenya and wants to sell it.He is now on his third listing.
I wonder…
Will Little Pinch’s jihadi friends be so friendly to their reporters in the future because of this deception?
I wonder…
Did the NY Rag report on Daniel Pearl’s capture?
I don’t seem to share my fellow commenters’ distaste for Wikipedia. I think the main problem is that because its stated intention is trying to be an encyclopedia, people assume they can use it like a traditionally-edited encyclopedia. (And personally, I’m not even sure I’d trust a standard encyclopedia either.)
I find Wikipedia, and its offshoots are at their most useful when the information in it is endnoted. Then you use the endnote to track down the primary or secondary source. The key is to not rely on Wikipedia in and of itself, but use it as a tool in finding other research materials.
The key get as close to the original source as possible.
You’re not alone in this thinking. I had considered a similar response but could not find the right words to keep it short.
Wikipedia as a staging ground for going to other links is not terrible. Plus, there’s a wealth of information to be had on less controversial topics that you might otherwise have a difficult time finding. As you say, even traditional encyclopedias had issues with finding true experts versus people that were willing to write something on a topic.
You take Wikipedia with a grain of salt and do more research. That doesn’t mean that all of Wikipedia is terrible. I’m with you on this.
That said, though, if Wikipedia is actively censoring posts to protect certain entities (like the NYT) to prevent facts from surfacing, that goes against the grain of what they profess to be. They deserve any ridicule and scorn they have coming to them if this is true.
What the Times executives believed shouldn’t really matter. What should matter was what the FBI and David Rohde’s family believed.
Since when is the NYT an authority on how to deal with terrorist kidnappings? Why is that no where in the article to they mention dealing with real experts on these matters?