Claymore sends us a link to the LA Times which recounts the editor’s explanation on a live chat for their decision to release the photos that the military has slavishly denounced as “inappropriate;<\/p>\n
In a live chat on latimes.com, Editor Davan Maharaj explained the decision to publish the material, especially the pictures, even though the events occurred two years ago. The publication comes at an especially sensitive time, with the U.S. and its NATO allies seeking to disengage from the Afghanistan war that began in October 2001.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe considered this very carefully,\u201d Maharaj said. \u201cAt the end of the day, our job is to publish information that our readers need to make informed decisions. We have a particular duty to report vigorously and impartially on all aspects of the American mission in Afghanistan. On balance, in this case, we felt that the public interest here was served by publishing a limited, but representative sample of these photos, along with a story explaining the circumstances under which they were taken.\u201d<\/p>\n
In response to a reader\u2019s question about how the photographs were selected, Maharaj said taste and relevance were the guiding principles.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
OK, Maharaj, tell us what decisions that the public can now make about our involvement in the war that they couldn’t have made on Friday before you published those photos. That war is terrible? They should be making the decision to stop their subscription to the LA Times – well, those two subscribers you still have. <\/p>\n
No amount of high-minded rhetoric can convince me that the decision was “considered…carefully”. The decision was purely a business decision intended to have the blood lead their news that day. It was meant to shock and disgust readers and to portray US soldiers in a bad light, to paint with a broad brush all members of the services and hand more ammunition to the anti-war element on the West Coast. The decision was a juvenile and ill-considered decision based only on newspaper and advertising sales. <\/p>\n
That Maharaj had to explain to his readers why they did what the LA Times did should tell him something about his readership in regards to the decision.<\/p>\n
But Maharaj said that the safety of troops was among The Times’ concerns.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe photographs were provided by a soldier in the unit \u201cwho was himself concerned that the photos reflected dysfunction in discipline and a breakdown in leadership that compromised the safety of the troops,\u201d Maharaj said.<\/p>\n
He went on to say that the newspaper weighed the impact of publication on troop safety and that reporter David Zucchino had numerous conversations with the appropriate military officials.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen we made the decision to publish, the Pentagon asked us to wait 24 additional hours to protect troops depicted in the photographs,” Maharaj said. “We agreed to push back our publication date until the Pentagon told us they had taken the necessary precautions. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
While I commend them for waiting on the military to protect the people in the pictures, what about the troops who aren’t in the photos who have to deal with the backlash in the war theater? By the way, Davan, people don’t turn over photos to the media because of their concern for the troops. If he really wanted to make a difference, the guy who gave you the photos would have given them to the military, either his unit or law enforcement, not the fricken LA Times as the first place to drop them off. <\/p>\n
ADDED: My editor at Business Insider<\/a> has many of the same thoughts I had. I guess that’s why I get business over there now.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"