There was no need to show pictures of bloody rags, pieces of shrapnel, or any other detritus left by a bomb which killed 22 little girls. This was gratuitous crime porn. Times readers are not those who read or subscribe to The National Enquirer; that is because we don't want to see the pictures you recently published. We don't need to see the bloody aftermath; we can visualize from the descriptions given in print. And, those who are allied with those emotionally damaged young people want that publicity. You gave them exactly what they wanted. They use that stuff to recruit other youngsters.
I have serious concerns about the motivations of the NYT to publish these photos. Whilst readers do have a right to know the truth, photos seem to contribute to a 'voyeuristic' desire in our society. This is not a TV drama. I am sorry this was done in the wake of families, a city, and a nation still reeling from the impact of this horrible terrorist attack. Although I am a NYT subscriber, I think the decision to publish these photos was made too quickly and reflects poor judgement. This editorial doesn't make amends.
1
MY first impression when seeing the Manchester horror pictures in the Times was "Why ?" To me putting those photos so front and center was nothing more than misery porn meant to attract prurient interest and beneath NYT to publish so soon and in such fashion.
1
Come on folks, do we really expect the New York Times to care about the safety of ordinary citizens who do not have the wealth and influence of New York Times employees that can afford to live behind terrorist-proof sheltered communities.
And you wonder why ordinary folks have good reason to continue their distrust and hatred elitist organizations like the New York Times.
And you wonder why ordinary folks have good reason to continue their distrust and hatred elitist organizations like the New York Times.
1
I subscribed to the NYT from the UK to support good journalism in the age of Trump. I expected better of you. For what little my subscription means to you per month, I cannot in good conscience continue to fund your organisation. Bad enough of you to publish something that may aid child killers. If it were your own family affected I doubt you would've made the same decision. It is unconscionable that you couldn't bring yourselves to see your error of judgement and apologise accordingly. For shame. I'm cancelling my subscription. Best of luck with Trump.
1
The interview at the BBC is very arrogant. When the police in Manchester say they believe that the publication has hindered or jeopardised their investigation his only response was to "Prove it!". In Europe we actually believe what our police says, if they say that there was a risk then there was a risk. I have family in the UK and cannot stomach this sort of conduct. Why not release the photos a couple of days later. This is just CSI porn, a normal person cannot make anything of the photos - they don't add anything to the story. It adds a veneer of analysis without adding any substance, while (according to the police in the UK) endangering the investigation itself.
2
This represents a "black eye" for the Times similar to that for the Clinton campaign when Bill failed to sense the optics of visiting the Attorney General on board her plane. Plain Hubris! Plain Stupidity!
1
I watched the attack unfold by reading GMP's statements, to try to keep to the facts. I got that they couldn't reveal all, for security reasons, and because of human empathy and sense. When the NYT posted blood-smeared photos of the device and the torn fabric of a backpack they showed absolutely no empathy or sense. I can't guess the thinking behind the decision, and if the buck stopped with one person or not, but no one with any sense of humanity could think it was a good idea. I can only assume that career and money and ego left any human feeling or sense mute.
Try to see it from the families POV. When you leave work and go home to yours, imagine if you were desperately searching online for information about where they were and if they were dead or injured. And then imagine seeing images of cold metal smeared with blood, and the ripped fabric of a backpack. Imagine the ripped skin of your child as you drop your bag and hug them. Imagine that smear of blood as you wipe the evening's sauce from your childs mouth. Imagine how you would feel if because of a rag's desire for clicks another slaughter had occurred.
When your paycheque or ad stats come through I hope your mind has the decency to impose on them a smear of blood and that you see and hear the giddy flushed excitement of young girls leaving their idol's concert and hear the whimper of children lying in agony and smell the stench of blood and fear and see the ripped skin and the cold fragments of metal.
Try to see it from the families POV. When you leave work and go home to yours, imagine if you were desperately searching online for information about where they were and if they were dead or injured. And then imagine seeing images of cold metal smeared with blood, and the ripped fabric of a backpack. Imagine the ripped skin of your child as you drop your bag and hug them. Imagine that smear of blood as you wipe the evening's sauce from your childs mouth. Imagine how you would feel if because of a rag's desire for clicks another slaughter had occurred.
When your paycheque or ad stats come through I hope your mind has the decency to impose on them a smear of blood and that you see and hear the giddy flushed excitement of young girls leaving their idol's concert and hear the whimper of children lying in agony and smell the stench of blood and fear and see the ripped skin and the cold fragments of metal.
1
Well said. Hopefully this public editor gains some understanding of the Times audience from these comments. If not, she would do well at the Daily News or the National Enquirer where her "crime reporting" experience would be valued.
"The judgment is that there is a public benefit to telling people how terrorists work, including the makeup of their bombs, the kinds of packs they carry."
Yeah.
I immediately got rid of a few nuts and bolts I had lying around. Still have to check if my son's backpack matches the description.
So proud to have made the world safer.
Thank you NYT!
Yeah.
I immediately got rid of a few nuts and bolts I had lying around. Still have to check if my son's backpack matches the description.
So proud to have made the world safer.
Thank you NYT!
1
I was one of the people who emailed this paper about their publication of UK intelligence leaks, I have just picked up an email asking me to read this lengthy article full of dribble.
Words cannot express how angry I am right now, and your editors will be receiving an email to say the same.
This may be interesting to everyone across the world, however as I explained to the editor, this is our reality.
The reality that my family nearly lost their best friends, the reality that other people have lost their whole lives when that parasite took away their children and loved ones.
For those who can't see what information is important, you need to have a good hard think.
What about the name of the bomber? What about the remaining pieces of the bomb? Both of these stories could quite clearly affect any ongoing investigations, could help the others involved reassess how to hide future evidence, work out how to make a bomb work better, or work to hide the evidence before the police get to them.
Before anyone comments to say the people involved would have known who the bomber was anyway......yes you are probably right...however, whilst they were under the impression the police had no idea who the bomber was, they thought they were safe.
The NY times and other journalists who published this information are directly responsible for impacting any investigation into these morons in the UK, no matter how you try to dress it up.
Words cannot express how angry I am right now, and your editors will be receiving an email to say the same.
This may be interesting to everyone across the world, however as I explained to the editor, this is our reality.
The reality that my family nearly lost their best friends, the reality that other people have lost their whole lives when that parasite took away their children and loved ones.
For those who can't see what information is important, you need to have a good hard think.
What about the name of the bomber? What about the remaining pieces of the bomb? Both of these stories could quite clearly affect any ongoing investigations, could help the others involved reassess how to hide future evidence, work out how to make a bomb work better, or work to hide the evidence before the police get to them.
Before anyone comments to say the people involved would have known who the bomber was anyway......yes you are probably right...however, whilst they were under the impression the police had no idea who the bomber was, they thought they were safe.
The NY times and other journalists who published this information are directly responsible for impacting any investigation into these morons in the UK, no matter how you try to dress it up.
1
I too wrote to the NYT as the material was published and I am not convinced by the response! It seems the "24 hour news cycle" and perhaps revenue interests have over come common sense. Both those whose suffered and those who committed this event have not benefited. One comment below about asking if the British were willing to allow this to be published. Dean Banquet does not quite understand the differences in approaches and culture; a sad situation for the paper. Not knowing how British investigations work is parochial at best for what is supposed to be one the world's leading newspapers. As with other matters we face, the cover up is as bad as the "crime."
1
It's a good thing we the public have the NYTimes to tell us "what kind of packs [terrorists] carry". If these brave journalists hadn't rushed to blurt, without delay, forensic photos of charred "blue Karrimor backpack" shreds on a bloodstained floor, why, we might have to suspect everyone carrying any type of luggage of being a terrorist. Hats off to the NYT for their selfless disregard of taste, reason, public safety, and journalistic standards!
1
"The photographs and story are unquestionably compelling and provide insight into an event of crucial public interest. That doesn’t mean the public has some vital need to see these photos; but by that standard neither do they need to see plenty of other stories and photographs."
How many of those other stories are about ongoing investigations of a network of terrorists, still on the loose, who've just murdered 20-odd people and injured dozens more? You really should think sweeping statements like this through a bit more before committing them to a column.
"Typically in cases like this, there is an internal discussion among top editors in the newsroom where questions are raised of just the type that readers are now voicing. Most likely that happened in this case as well, although editors have declined to discuss such conversations."
Yet another sign of an increasingly marginalized, and far less useful to the public, public editor.
How many of those other stories are about ongoing investigations of a network of terrorists, still on the loose, who've just murdered 20-odd people and injured dozens more? You really should think sweeping statements like this through a bit more before committing them to a column.
"Typically in cases like this, there is an internal discussion among top editors in the newsroom where questions are raised of just the type that readers are now voicing. Most likely that happened in this case as well, although editors have declined to discuss such conversations."
Yet another sign of an increasingly marginalized, and far less useful to the public, public editor.
1
You were wrong, wrong, wrong. Freedom of information is key and it is definitely under assault right now by our own government and President. But when you weigh the risk vs benefit of what you printed, you did not ere on the side of safety. Seeing the bomb pieces and physical evidence does nothing to inform the public in ways that are needed and did a great deal to derail the investigation and put others are risk. I am a subscriber, I love the reporting you do, but you blew it big time. You embarrassed our country, put lives at risk, could have potentially interfered with bringing additional guilty parties to justice and what did anyone gain from seeing bomb parts? You had a big scoop and you chose to make a splash and be first rather than be thoughtful and prudent. I hope you do better in the future or I will cancel my subscription. Not every bit of leaked info needs to be printed because we have a free press. I hope we also can have a discriminating and conscientious press as well. Shame on the NYT.
2
Liz Spayd isn't doing her job, and this evasive defense of the Times displays again her unwillingness to ask tough questions of top editors. "Most likely," she says, the editors had a discussion, "although [they] have declined to discuss such conversations."
Well, Liz, ask again. Your job is to understand how they came to their decision--one in this case which seems tabloid-like to many of us. Someone there should recognize that the Times is slowly, surely, losing its reputation for aggressive reporting and for editorial integrity. I, for one, after more than a half-century with the Times, have now subscribed to the Washington Post, which has more gumption these days than the Times.
This piece pushes me even further away. The job of the public editor is not to be a me-too voice, but Liz Spayd too often provides no insights into editorial decisions. Grade: C-/D+.
Well, Liz, ask again. Your job is to understand how they came to their decision--one in this case which seems tabloid-like to many of us. Someone there should recognize that the Times is slowly, surely, losing its reputation for aggressive reporting and for editorial integrity. I, for one, after more than a half-century with the Times, have now subscribed to the Washington Post, which has more gumption these days than the Times.
This piece pushes me even further away. The job of the public editor is not to be a me-too voice, but Liz Spayd too often provides no insights into editorial decisions. Grade: C-/D+.
1
I'll take Snowden and Manning over thr NYTs any day. They are more responsible than the NYT. The British investigators were obviously shocked by the stupidity of leaking FORENSIC EVIDENCE, within 2 days of a massive investigation. It's detective work 101 that you don't give any detailed forensic information out as you are hunting for accomplices and networks. As a previous comentator mentioned, now bomb-builders knew what got destroyed and what did not. How truly stupid of you to do...
1
When President Trump allegedly leaks intelligence from the Israeli's, apparently angering Israel, the Times is quick to print headlines highly critical of the President.
When the Times publishes photos allegedly leaked by American or British intelligence angering Britain, the Times quickly pats itself on the back for informing the public.
Bit of Timesian hypocrisy here.
When the Times publishes photos allegedly leaked by American or British intelligence angering Britain, the Times quickly pats itself on the back for informing the public.
Bit of Timesian hypocrisy here.
7
US intelligence actually uncovered name, other info of Manchester attacker; UN just 2 days prior said U.K. has a intel, security problem.
1
Whilst I am not a true Mancunian, I am by virtue of geography, work and play. I have lived in this area all of my life, except for a couple years living abroad.
I understand the NYT's desire to publish the images leaked to them, after all salacious rumours and grey images sell papers, and beyond the guff of 'printing the truth' and 'exposing lies' that all papers hide behind, such gore and speculation makes money. However the timing of the publication is crass and irresponsible.
The publication of the images whilst there is an ongoing investigation could seriously damage any cases the police bring to court and even help people evade capture or even prosecution. Now they know what we know, they know what hand we are holding and how to skirt around it or totally dismiss it, whether that be on the fringe of legality or project total innocence.
We don't have a right to know everything, nor do we really need to know everything. Whilst our laws may differ, I would expect our moral compasses point in the same direction.
I can only imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, the NYT's response to a UK paper publishing such evidence (because that is what it is) would be pretty pissy.
Andy,
Manchester.
I understand the NYT's desire to publish the images leaked to them, after all salacious rumours and grey images sell papers, and beyond the guff of 'printing the truth' and 'exposing lies' that all papers hide behind, such gore and speculation makes money. However the timing of the publication is crass and irresponsible.
The publication of the images whilst there is an ongoing investigation could seriously damage any cases the police bring to court and even help people evade capture or even prosecution. Now they know what we know, they know what hand we are holding and how to skirt around it or totally dismiss it, whether that be on the fringe of legality or project total innocence.
We don't have a right to know everything, nor do we really need to know everything. Whilst our laws may differ, I would expect our moral compasses point in the same direction.
I can only imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, the NYT's response to a UK paper publishing such evidence (because that is what it is) would be pretty pissy.
Andy,
Manchester.
4
You should be ashamed. Apologise!
4
I don't see the point of this piece, as the Public Editor admits she does not have the information needed to answer the key questions. Please get back to us when you do!
4
It is interesting to see the "justification" for publishing all the information that has been leaked. Whilst Greater Manchester Police has done an excellent job in acting as quick as they have, they fear that they have not rounded up ALL the ring. Of course, their ability to round them all up would have been enhanced without the reckless publication of this information. Releasing the name of the bomber early acts as a trigger to the team round the bomber, sending his associates running into the wind. The bomb pics show the bomb maker how much information GMP have available to them. He knows they understand how he constructs his bombs. Which means that the next time he does, he will ensure he does everything totally differently. Making him harder to track. Like many people, bomb makers have their own marks, or traits. Things they do time and again. But thanks to the pics being put out there, he will now make sure he doesn't make any mistakes. Meaning any chance of catching him easily has gone.
3
Publishing photos of items found by investigators and identified as bomb fragments show the bomb makers the capability of law enforcement, what they are tracing the source of, and also which components they could design to fragment better so that the design of the bomb could not be reverse engineered.
1
This article seems to be a deliberate attempt to avoid the issue. The issue at hand is nothing to do with the public's right to know. The British complaint was about the timing of the release of the information, which the Times has failed to justify.
2
The Times could have accomplished the objective of educating the public about terrorists' tactics by using simulated representations of the artifacts rather than the exact pictures.
2
The story was all that was necessary. Publishing the photos of the bomb components was not needed. The NYT sought sensationalism not to bring understanding of the events. The excuse they gave was shallow. If the U.K. wanted to keep the photos to themselves, that should have been respected.
2
Spayd just provided another reminder that we now live in a time when nobody takes responsibility for their screw ups. Publishing that info was a screw up. Admit it.
3
"Typically in cases like this, there is an internal discussion among top editors in the newsroom where questions are raised of just the type that readers are now voicing. Most likely that happened in this case as well, although editors have declined to discuss such conversations."
and
"In this instance, it’s not clear whether government officials — either U.S. or British — had such a discussion with The Times or whether this was complicated by the possibility that U.S. officials leaked British investigative evidence."
Somehow leads to: "In the absence of such information, I support The Times’s decision."
How can you establish an argument on an absence? Only clear evidence of a discussion with Manchester Police could show that the NYT had embarked on the balancing exercise you suggest. And on what possible basis is it permitted to deny us knowledge of the NYT's processes in the name of open-ness?
Listen to us. You have got this one very wrong. Think again.
and
"In this instance, it’s not clear whether government officials — either U.S. or British — had such a discussion with The Times or whether this was complicated by the possibility that U.S. officials leaked British investigative evidence."
Somehow leads to: "In the absence of such information, I support The Times’s decision."
How can you establish an argument on an absence? Only clear evidence of a discussion with Manchester Police could show that the NYT had embarked on the balancing exercise you suggest. And on what possible basis is it permitted to deny us knowledge of the NYT's processes in the name of open-ness?
Listen to us. You have got this one very wrong. Think again.
1
First, wrong to publish. Then much worse not to admit the lack of judgment. We all make mistakes. OWN UP!
4
The question was not to publish or not the information, but to publish it at the right time. And the angry reaction of the UK police shows to anybody that the Times published it TOO SOON, and surprisingly, the author of this NYT justification seems not to grasp this issue. Sad, I would say if I was not worried to sound like somebody who thinks he is always right.
3
Very disappointed in NYT. Arent you big enough to say you got it wrong? I thought you were different, but I was wrong. Cancelling my sub, such a shame
3
I disagree with the NYT hiding behind a "public benefit" during an important security investigation in another country. The leak may very well compromised
the activities of security personnel, by alerting the perpetrators as to whom was being investigated, and details of information security personnel were working on to net others involved.
I do agree with freedom of speech, but not to the extent of shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater, when there is no fire.
I subscribe to NYT, and am a faithful reader, but nearly cancelled my subscription, seeing the NYT sink into sensationalism for revenues.
the activities of security personnel, by alerting the perpetrators as to whom was being investigated, and details of information security personnel were working on to net others involved.
I do agree with freedom of speech, but not to the extent of shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater, when there is no fire.
I subscribe to NYT, and am a faithful reader, but nearly cancelled my subscription, seeing the NYT sink into sensationalism for revenues.
3
I cannot agree that the photos added anything to our understanding beyond what was or could be discussed in words in the accompanying stories. What actually did we learn from a picture of a shredded Karimore backpack beyond the fact that some of its fabric was blue in color? The reactions of the British authorities, who clearly were aggrieved on their own parts and on the part of the families of the victims, were not at all irrational, excessive or uncalled for. So I think the Times's Editors made a mistake. I'd feel more comfortable about it if the Editors had at least acknowledged the error.
2
As an explanation and justification for the inexcusable, this column is on par with Trump White House media relations for lameness and spin in the face of the obvious--and most pointedly for how the spokesperson is left to dangle before an angry public, having been denied the full or the true story by their superiors.
Seriously, media such as the NY Times constantly advise public figures in trouble that the evasion and the denial are often worse than the mistake, so fess up quickly and move on, rather than lose respect for looking too insecure to admit the truth.
It's getting past time for the NY Times to take its own advice on this lapse. I promise not to cancel my subscription if you do.
Seriously, media such as the NY Times constantly advise public figures in trouble that the evasion and the denial are often worse than the mistake, so fess up quickly and move on, rather than lose respect for looking too insecure to admit the truth.
It's getting past time for the NY Times to take its own advice on this lapse. I promise not to cancel my subscription if you do.
2
Note that nothing in Dean Baquet's statements suggests that the NYT weighed the potential for harming the investigation or aiding the terrorists (against the importance of explaining how terrorists work) when making its decision to publish the leaked information.
2
It is time for the Times to respond publicly rather than leaving it to its own Public Editor to speculate, "Perhaps such discussions with British investigators did take place, and The Times found the argument unconvincing."
2
Times should respect other countries secrets if America wishes to retain their trust
3
The danger to the public in the media publishing forensic evidence from the investigation is that the terrorists will see clearly that the investigators are hot on their trail, and so will move the date and time of their next terror attack ahead so as to pull it off before they are caught or prevented. That is the reason the city of Manchester, all of England and all of Europe was immediately put on high alert for the next attack. The New York Times should have not expected British officials to make their case to them while scrambling round-the-clock to prevent an impending terrorist attack. The NY Time should have erred on the side of protecting public safety and waited to get a clear go-ahead before publishing.
2
I'm a long time NYT reader but I'm sorely disappointed in the decision to publish this information. Combating terrorism is a global cause and the rationale of the Times editors cited in this article, frankly, falls far short of the mark. NYT was wrong and should take responsibility.
2
In this case, the public was not served. The public is now compromised. If you wish to educate the public on how terrorists build bombs, write a tutorial. If you wish to serve the greater public good, wait until the investigating parties give you the go ahead to publish. This is a rare but, shameful lapse in judgement on the part of a formerly respectable publication.
You compromised an investigation for a scoop.
I think an apology from the editor and some oversight of the editor is in order.
You compromised an investigation for a scoop.
I think an apology from the editor and some oversight of the editor is in order.
4
The Times seems to temporarily suffer from the same malaise they keep accusing the current President of - inability to admit a mistake. The articles and opinion pieces trying to 'newsplain' (or 'Timesplain"?) the publication of sensitive terror investigation details keep piling up: Trump leaks! 1st amendment! Reader interest! Others did the same! But this was a rare error in judgment, and the Times should be able to admit as much.
42
Far from rare error in judgment.
Remember, the NY Times Publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. has had over the past six months seen it necessary to write two, absolutely extraordinary letters to the subscribers regarding NY Times policies.
And the Public Editor has spent most of her columns covering for the editors and writers of the Times for actions and situations that should never have occurred.
Remember, the NY Times Publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. has had over the past six months seen it necessary to write two, absolutely extraordinary letters to the subscribers regarding NY Times policies.
And the Public Editor has spent most of her columns covering for the editors and writers of the Times for actions and situations that should never have occurred.
1
Thank God for an independent press. And national treasures like The New York Times and Washington Post.
If newspapers were to publish columns based on democratic feedback (popularity ratings or comments from readers) then Trump voters could decide what we end up reading - in which case, we'd still be on Clinton conspiracies... this is not a partisan attack. Just see what Hannity and Limbaugh are doing covering the Seth Rich tragedy.
I see the partisan, motivated attacks on the Times for exactly what they are. I expect most long time readers see the same, and support journalistic integrity and editorial discretion...
If newspapers were to publish columns based on democratic feedback (popularity ratings or comments from readers) then Trump voters could decide what we end up reading - in which case, we'd still be on Clinton conspiracies... this is not a partisan attack. Just see what Hannity and Limbaugh are doing covering the Seth Rich tragedy.
I see the partisan, motivated attacks on the Times for exactly what they are. I expect most long time readers see the same, and support journalistic integrity and editorial discretion...
10
No don't do this. I despise Trump and all he stands for. But you are falling in to the same partisan trap he and his supporters do. Sometimes we get it wrong and it isn't a weakness to admit that. The partisan thing here would be to claim that those who are calling out the NYT are opponents of its editorial stance. But we are anything but, the paper was just wrong to put a journalistic scoop above public safety end of story.
1
A free press doesn't mean irresponsible and reckless reporting. It seems to me that no one here is questioning NYT's right to make independent editorial decisions, just this particular decision. An independent press has a duty to balance incisive reporting with decency and responsibility. Otherwise it risks sacrificing its integrity. In this case, NYT got the balance spectacularly wrong.
1
Guess ordinary folks that do not have the ability to live behind safe ivory tower communities such as yours are just simply fodder for your "principles."
Because, despite what you may believe, emphasizing public safety during ongoing terrorist investigation and not partisanship or blind ideology is what all citizens, even out-of-touch elitist like you, deserve.
Because, despite what you may believe, emphasizing public safety during ongoing terrorist investigation and not partisanship or blind ideology is what all citizens, even out-of-touch elitist like you, deserve.
I very much appreciate this independent take on what I feel was a publishing misstep by the New York Times. I am heartened by the NYT's willingness to remain open to critique and solicit the opinion of a public editor to review their controversial decision. This, I believe, is demonstrative of the NYT's dedication to the highest standards of journalism. If only our government would be so open and swift in their response...
4
Every person who was involved in the decision to publish this information should resign or be fired since the potential damaging impacts they either could not fathom or if they did, have total disregard for the victims, investigators and the safety of the public in general from future terrorist attacks.
16
Mr Moderator, you claim to have 210 comments listed: I count 31 comments. Why are you withholding 179 comments?
10
@Don't: It probably has something to do with your device.
Why?
Because the IT staff, even after at least two years of being notified, have yet to fix the broken "Read More" icon at the bottom of the page.
And now, they have seemed to have introduced the error where the comments button at the top of the page appears and disappears at random.
Talk about not caring about what the readers have to say...
Perhaps Ms. Spayd could give us an update. After all, Ms. Sullivan mentioned the correction's imminent arrival along with a host of other feature changes some 18 months ago.
Because the IT staff, even after at least two years of being notified, have yet to fix the broken "Read More" icon at the bottom of the page.
And now, they have seemed to have introduced the error where the comments button at the top of the page appears and disappears at random.
Talk about not caring about what the readers have to say...
Perhaps Ms. Spayd could give us an update. After all, Ms. Sullivan mentioned the correction's imminent arrival along with a host of other feature changes some 18 months ago.
This acknowledgement by the NYT's public editor is problematic and a poor excuse for justification as to reasons why they made this ill fated decision in publishing the photos and information.
There isn't any reason for the public to know intricate details of the IED that will get the public safe from future attacks, however this information could be useful to terrorists planning similar attacks in the future on how to enhance an IED to be more destructive.
There isn't any reason for the public to know intricate details of the IED that will get the public safe from future attacks, however this information could be useful to terrorists planning similar attacks in the future on how to enhance an IED to be more destructive.
27
My husband and I fully support the NYT's decision to publish the information on the tragic Manchester City bombing. It is not clear how publishing this information impedes the investigation. Undoubtedly the progress and outcome of what is surely a very complex investigation will not be impeded by this reporting. We agree with the following:
"The photographs and story are unquestionably compelling and provide insight into an event of crucial public interest. That doesn’t mean the public has some vital need to see these photos; but by that standard neither do they need to see plenty of other stories and photographs."
"The photographs and story are unquestionably compelling and provide insight into an event of crucial public interest. That doesn’t mean the public has some vital need to see these photos; but by that standard neither do they need to see plenty of other stories and photographs."
2
"Undoubtedly the progress and outcome of what is surely a very complex investigation will not be impeded by this reporting."
Like the Times, you give no reason for your certainty about something you can have no real certainty about. That's the essential weakness underlying the Times's justification--a claim to have knowledge that it would be impossible for the newspaper to have.
"I know I'm right because I'm the New York Times" is nothing more than begging the question.
Like the Times, you give no reason for your certainty about something you can have no real certainty about. That's the essential weakness underlying the Times's justification--a claim to have knowledge that it would be impossible for the newspaper to have.
"I know I'm right because I'm the New York Times" is nothing more than begging the question.
The 2005 bombings in London that killed 50 and injured 700 on 3 trains & 1 bus was followed up by a second attack 14 days later. The good news for California is that you may never have heard about the second attack involving 4 bombs because it was prevented by the security services in time.
The British security services have prevented many other attacks sine then. They know what they are doing and they share information with the US to help you.
California senators on Congressional intelligence committee seem to regard leaking as unavoidable. Leaking may be a useful political weapon against Trump but breaching the protocol of allies in favour of giving terrorist information appals me. The Manchester police are correct in suspending information sharing if your security services are not secure.
The British security services have prevented many other attacks sine then. They know what they are doing and they share information with the US to help you.
California senators on Congressional intelligence committee seem to regard leaking as unavoidable. Leaking may be a useful political weapon against Trump but breaching the protocol of allies in favour of giving terrorist information appals me. The Manchester police are correct in suspending information sharing if your security services are not secure.
1
I am from Dublin Ireland and also thank God for the NYT and the Washington Post, without an independent press, the Trump administration would ride roughshod not only over America, but the world. I have subscribed to The New York Times to keep myself up to date with the news, in the American rather then or own Irish Press.
Since taking office President Trump has taken a 360-degree turn on his opinion of leaks. Is this the same Trump who encouraged the Russians to leak more emails regarding Hillary Clinton? Is it the same man who also said he loved Wikileaks? From what I have read, the name of the suspected bomber was already out there, the nature of the terrible bomb (nail Bomb) was also in the news on both sides of the pond within the first 24hours. In the same time frame arrest were also well under way in both Manchester and Libya.
Unfortunately for you NYT, you made the exact same mistake Trump made when he blabbed to the Russians. You released seemingly necessary information without realizing that what you DID say contained clues to what you DID NOT say, thus exposing confidential information to the enemy in spite of yourself.
In Trump's case he divulged the suspected threat of laptop bombs which we already knew about from reports of proposed changes to airline carry-on luggage rules. While he did not state the source of intel, nor the procedures by which such intel was acquired, Trump mentioned the name of a city and other details from which the Russians could easily deduce the source of the intel and possibly also the procedures.
In your case, NYT, you published forensic photos of the remains of the backpack and a detonator device that (from what I have learned) can be used by the bombmaker to determine how their Manchester bomb worked in practice. From these photos the bombmaker can decide if they need to make adjustments in construction, etc, to the next bomb to render it equally or more effective during the next attack. Words sans photos, not so much.
So, NYT, you have given valuable post-event technical information to an ISIS bombmaker from which to devise more, and more deadly, bombs to unleash on the British people, and maybe even us one day. Perhaps you need to have an anti-terrorist forensics expert come give you a training seminar in what, and what not to, publish. For the common good.
In Trump's case he divulged the suspected threat of laptop bombs which we already knew about from reports of proposed changes to airline carry-on luggage rules. While he did not state the source of intel, nor the procedures by which such intel was acquired, Trump mentioned the name of a city and other details from which the Russians could easily deduce the source of the intel and possibly also the procedures.
In your case, NYT, you published forensic photos of the remains of the backpack and a detonator device that (from what I have learned) can be used by the bombmaker to determine how their Manchester bomb worked in practice. From these photos the bombmaker can decide if they need to make adjustments in construction, etc, to the next bomb to render it equally or more effective during the next attack. Words sans photos, not so much.
So, NYT, you have given valuable post-event technical information to an ISIS bombmaker from which to devise more, and more deadly, bombs to unleash on the British people, and maybe even us one day. Perhaps you need to have an anti-terrorist forensics expert come give you a training seminar in what, and what not to, publish. For the common good.
30
No. Trump has a) the authority to declassify material; he is actually has the ultimate authority; and b) Trump has the sole and exclusive authority to handle international relations under the Constitution.
Sorry, the NY Times owns this error all by their onesies.
Sorry, the NY Times owns this error all by their onesies.
1
I've been looking out for this piece for days - and it does NOT answer the questions I had. Of course we all know there were serious discussions in the editorial office. But *what* discussions? And were the UK authorities consulted, to see if they could make a good case for not publishing? And what did they say? C'mon - you can't shroud yourself in the same veil of discretion that you pull away from others.
Also, timing. Right now, actual truth is under assault from the administration hellbent on distracting the public with accusations and bluster, while they rob them blind. Lots of us are out here trying to persuade all and sundry that there really is such a thing as "fake news" and "real news," and that you and various other organizations are "real news," and that not only your factual accuracy but your editorial judgment should be trusted. So - now is not the time either to succumb to sensationalism, or to come over all coy in a raging editorial debate.
Also, timing. Right now, actual truth is under assault from the administration hellbent on distracting the public with accusations and bluster, while they rob them blind. Lots of us are out here trying to persuade all and sundry that there really is such a thing as "fake news" and "real news," and that you and various other organizations are "real news," and that not only your factual accuracy but your editorial judgment should be trusted. So - now is not the time either to succumb to sensationalism, or to come over all coy in a raging editorial debate.
26
It would seem to me that if Ms. Spayd assumes that there were discussions, she might have asked just exactly what was the scope of them.
Another unforced error on the part of the Public Editor in not representing the Readers.
Another unforced error on the part of the Public Editor in not representing the Readers.
1
Aside from all of the important political issues, the Times' denial that its publication of these photographs before victims were even fully identified is exploitative, hurtful and prurient is unacceptable.
Blood is clearly visible in the photos.
The associated graphics depict victims as dots on what appears akin to a computer game.
This is yellow journalism at its most morally and inhumanely irresponsible.
Blood is clearly visible in the photos.
The associated graphics depict victims as dots on what appears akin to a computer game.
This is yellow journalism at its most morally and inhumanely irresponsible.
19
It is not about publishing but the timing as the speed they did it could potentially have helped members of the terrorist ring escape. We will see if this comes back to haunt NYT.
13
Reading through the comments, I saw a recurring theme of 'biases against/bashing Our President' made against the NYT.
It seemed obvious that many posters were right-wingers who read the NYT just to boil their blood the way that intelligent readers might look at FOX. They are waiting for any opportunity, real or imagined, to complain and repeatedly cancel their subscriptions.
Now that Obama is out of office and Hillary is out of the running, the NYT and the WP have become convenient targets.
It seemed obvious that many posters were right-wingers who read the NYT just to boil their blood the way that intelligent readers might look at FOX. They are waiting for any opportunity, real or imagined, to complain and repeatedly cancel their subscriptions.
Now that Obama is out of office and Hillary is out of the running, the NYT and the WP have become convenient targets.
5
This editorial had nothing to do with the election; it had everything to do with disgusting crime porn usually found in The National Enquirer. As usual, Allen is out on the margins behind the looking glass.
To me, the greater concern isn't about the photos - there the discussion is whether they served anything other than prurient interests - but the exposure of the attacker's name, while the UK police were trying to roll up any terror network.
Publicizing his name before the UK investigators released it seems very dangerous - and we can't pretend that what is published in the NY Times will not be instantly disseminated world-wide.
Publicizing his name before the UK investigators released it seems very dangerous - and we can't pretend that what is published in the NY Times will not be instantly disseminated world-wide.
21
Well, you would say that wouldn't you.
7
Liz Spayd again supports the Times with a "me too" piece that equals Dean's disregard for facts and issues.
16
Presumably, this report and the images were vetted through an independent second source, as is the standard for professional journalism. If not, the NY Times may as well hang up its Newspaper 'shingle'.
6
So maybe I'm missing something...but can someone tell me how exactly this affected the investigation?
This has been how most terrorist attacks have been reported in the last ten years, and a lot of the information was swirling around on social media (such as the killers name) before any news site reported it.
But I'm failing to see how the investigation was impeded because of posting images of the tools that were used.
This has been how most terrorist attacks have been reported in the last ten years, and a lot of the information was swirling around on social media (such as the killers name) before any news site reported it.
But I'm failing to see how the investigation was impeded because of posting images of the tools that were used.
6
Supposedly, bombmakers call tell from the remains of a detonated explosive device how well the bomb worked in practice, and they can get an idea of how to fine tune the construction and design of the bomb in the future to achieve a desired effect. Similar type information can be gleaned from spent cartridge shells and used bullets after gunshots are fired. With guns, more than just what type of gun was fired can be told from the debris lying about after the incident. Photographs provide considerably more useful information than a simple written description of the remains.
It's manufactured outrage meant to provide an excuse to strike out at the media and stamp out leakers within the administration.
Jane Doe from Nowhere, you simply need to try to imagine this terrorist event happening in a teenager-filled prom, set somewhere in Nowhere, and that a newspaper from Somewhere-Else across the sea—for its misplaced sense of reader rights, desire for the scoop, and pursuit of economic advantage—decided to pursue these ends rather than the public good that was, in their silence, recognised by every news agency of your respectable, otherwise peaceable Nowhere. (Think about this, please.)
Otherwise, like many before you, you express need for assistance in generating a counter-argument to your gut hunch on this matter. So, I direct you as well to the lengthy response given to ASB from CA below. It presents one way that an independent disclosure regarding evidence—unplanned by law enforcement seeking the perpetrators of a crime—can impede catching and convicting those responsible. As any first year law enforcement studies student might easily generate that simple foregoing insight, and a few more besides, I suggest that the real answer to "I'm failing to see..." is not to begin communicating, but to begin looking—researching the question at hand—and to begin thinking hard about the issues involved. The failing you express can likely be remedied in this way.
Otherwise, like many before you, you express need for assistance in generating a counter-argument to your gut hunch on this matter. So, I direct you as well to the lengthy response given to ASB from CA below. It presents one way that an independent disclosure regarding evidence—unplanned by law enforcement seeking the perpetrators of a crime—can impede catching and convicting those responsible. As any first year law enforcement studies student might easily generate that simple foregoing insight, and a few more besides, I suggest that the real answer to "I'm failing to see..." is not to begin communicating, but to begin looking—researching the question at hand—and to begin thinking hard about the issues involved. The failing you express can likely be remedied in this way.
I don't buy that it's in the public interest to know this sort of information about terrorists.
How could it possibly be useful for me to know that a lead acid battery is less likely to make a dud bomb than those batteries typically used? (I worry that now all bombers will switch to lead acid batteries)
Am I supposed to avoid all people with heavy looking blue backpacks?
How could it possibly be useful for me to know that a lead acid battery is less likely to make a dud bomb than those batteries typically used? (I worry that now all bombers will switch to lead acid batteries)
Am I supposed to avoid all people with heavy looking blue backpacks?
16
This response by Liz Spayd seems to muse over what conversations may or may not have occurred between the investigating authorities and the NYTimes, which comes across as either evasive or ignorant. I read the NYTimes daily and was repulsed by their decision to publish those photos. Dean Baquet said 'Nor was it insensitive', yet if any of those victims were my family, the image of the bloody detonator used to kill them would certainly qualify as exactly that. The decision to publish those photos was not about journalistic responsibility, but selling more adds. Let's hope this troubling article does not in fact compromise the ongoing investigation.
15
I read the article The NY Times wrote to explain what kinds of thinking and actions may have been involved in publishing the photos of forensic evidence. I remain unconvinced that the motivation for publishing so quickly was anything but having a scoop. That other publications found the photos worthy of rapid publication in no way relieves The Times from its moral obligation to public safety. The fact that publishing this information would be of value to those who perpetrated this act should have been the most compelling piece of information in deciding to publish. I'm disappointed that waving the flag of "free speech" to scoop other news organizations was more important than participating with restraint and consideration in a multinational investigation into a heinous terrorist act with worldwide implications.
18
The NYT does not make the determinations of 'highly classified information' for governments world wide. How narcissistic to make such a statement 'This was not highly classified information. '
Theresa May and major world leaders disagree with you, Mr. Baquet.
Does that matter to you when you receive 'leaked info'?
The public knows of dangers of hidden devices and backpacks at public events.
I for one do not need immediate details on the construction of the device in order to be advised of potential hazards of public backpacks etc. at large events. i.e. The Boston Marathon
It is of greater importance to investigate horrific offenses with unimpeded security. It is for the greater good of the public.
You unquenchable thirst for ratings supercedes the greater public good.
What about your own family's safety? Is 'beat the clock' reporting more important than the future for your own children? You know what you can do with your precious ratings.
Theresa May and major world leaders disagree with you, Mr. Baquet.
Does that matter to you when you receive 'leaked info'?
The public knows of dangers of hidden devices and backpacks at public events.
I for one do not need immediate details on the construction of the device in order to be advised of potential hazards of public backpacks etc. at large events. i.e. The Boston Marathon
It is of greater importance to investigate horrific offenses with unimpeded security. It is for the greater good of the public.
You unquenchable thirst for ratings supercedes the greater public good.
What about your own family's safety? Is 'beat the clock' reporting more important than the future for your own children? You know what you can do with your precious ratings.
13
I wonder how much of this public outrage is genuine and how much is just people jumping on the White Knight band wagon of pretending they're defending the families of the victims.
If the police hadn't said anything, would there still be public outrage?
I fail to see how showing the crime scene photos of the bomb making materials and the backpack is going to impede the investigation. The people that were involved in this are not at Starbucks sipping lattes.
If the police hadn't said anything, would there still be public outrage?
I fail to see how showing the crime scene photos of the bomb making materials and the backpack is going to impede the investigation. The people that were involved in this are not at Starbucks sipping lattes.
4
Our security services have foiled many attacks including a follow up attack to the 2005 bombing in London.
We are grateful for their professionalism and trust that the requests they make.
Many of us grew up aware the importance placed on Information and secrecy in WW2. "Careless talk cost lives" back then and giving away information after the bombing in London on 7 July 2005 might have helped the attack planned 2 weeks later succeed.
I am really grateful not to know anything about the second attack & fully trust the security services in their decision to share information with Americans and their choice of the protocol in doing so. Breaching that protocol is a sad reflection on the state of insecurity of US agencies.
I feel the leaker is a traitor to his role, his country & the agreement with UK.
The decision to publish by the NYT might have been weighed against legal consequences of doing so but it is a nad mistake. It should be weighed against the scale of life or death of future attacks & which side you are on.
We are grateful for their professionalism and trust that the requests they make.
Many of us grew up aware the importance placed on Information and secrecy in WW2. "Careless talk cost lives" back then and giving away information after the bombing in London on 7 July 2005 might have helped the attack planned 2 weeks later succeed.
I am really grateful not to know anything about the second attack & fully trust the security services in their decision to share information with Americans and their choice of the protocol in doing so. Breaching that protocol is a sad reflection on the state of insecurity of US agencies.
I feel the leaker is a traitor to his role, his country & the agreement with UK.
The decision to publish by the NYT might have been weighed against legal consequences of doing so but it is a nad mistake. It should be weighed against the scale of life or death of future attacks & which side you are on.
1
An many before you, you express inability, unassisted, to generate a counter-argument to your gut hunch on this matter. So, I direct you as well to the lengthy response given to ASB from CA below. It presents one way that an independent disclosure regarding evidence—unplanned by law enforcement seeking the perpetrators of a crime—can impede catching and convicting those responsible. As any first year law enforcement studies student might easily generate that simple foregoing insight, and a few more besides, I suggest that the real answer to "I fail to see..." is not to begin communicating, but to begin looking—researching the question at hand—and to begin thinking hard about the issues involved.
1. It is interesting that in publishing the leaked material yesterday the Times* made no mention at all of the British concern that this impeded their investigation. Isn't this relevant, or is the Times above criticism?
2. Freedom, yes; vigilance, yes; but common-sense-as well. The Times failed on the last.
2. Freedom, yes; vigilance, yes; but common-sense-as well. The Times failed on the last.
13
How often do governments reply, "fine, go ahead and publish X (Abu Ghraib photos, Valerie Plame's identity). We would prefer you didn't, but understand our citizens have a right to know."
2
The real public service here would have been to publish the names of the leakers.
We have a collective interest in the British police acting effectively against a mass murderer and his accomplices. People who see these things as a little game of one-upmanship with the media are not suited to positions of trust in the public service. The same thing can be said of newspaper editors who fail to see the larger interests that surround their actions.
We have a collective interest in the British police acting effectively against a mass murderer and his accomplices. People who see these things as a little game of one-upmanship with the media are not suited to positions of trust in the public service. The same thing can be said of newspaper editors who fail to see the larger interests that surround their actions.
14
Publishing pictures of a backpack (rucksack) is one thing, but publishing the name of the perpetrator is more troubling. I wonder how that decision was made so quickly. I think it is much easier to make the case for not holding that name for another 12 hours. I think NYT readers would understand a statement saying that the perpetrator's name is known, but is not being revealed until the investigation is further along. I love and need the New York Times, but I'm on the side of the investigators on this.
5
Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral, right, or wise--in my opinion.
Fred Alexander
Franklin, NC
Fred Alexander
Franklin, NC
11
You make the point that the British should have made the case why The NY Times should not publicize the information. That assumes that the Brits knew in advance that the Times had the material!! I'm sure they would have argued plenty if they knew.
By the way, did the Times do its civic duty by picking up the telephone and calling up the British government to give them a heads up about what they were about to publish? I haven't heard anyone say that they did.
I'm curious about the "public's right to know"... the catchall fall back position of the media in situations like this. A hypothetical. If a reporter for any media outlet, on June 4, 1944 got wind of the fact that D-Day, the Normandy Invasion was to happen 2 days later on June 6, 1944, would it be okay to publish that "scoop" ....as the public' right to know is paramount to all other considerations?
By the way, did the Times do its civic duty by picking up the telephone and calling up the British government to give them a heads up about what they were about to publish? I haven't heard anyone say that they did.
I'm curious about the "public's right to know"... the catchall fall back position of the media in situations like this. A hypothetical. If a reporter for any media outlet, on June 4, 1944 got wind of the fact that D-Day, the Normandy Invasion was to happen 2 days later on June 6, 1944, would it be okay to publish that "scoop" ....as the public' right to know is paramount to all other considerations?
11
Warren, that is a nonsense argument. One took place after the fact (Manchester), you falsely equate that to revealing the very toppest secret information BEFORE a secret invasion.
Perhaps you need reminding that Scotty Reston, then Eashington Bureau Chief, had the story of the Bay of Pigs invasion before it happened. He personally saw JFK, who asked him to hold the story, and he did. When it was a disaster, Kennedy mused that maybe he should have let the Times publish.
Further, you should know that there is a much less free press in the UK. The state secrets privilege is paramount to the British government.
But the idea that publishing pictures of the backpack and detonator would somehow impede the investigation is laughable on its face. Do you think that the accomplices of Abedi were thinking that no one was looking for them until the pictures were run? Puh-leeze! Frankly, you are going to try a LOT harder to explain how this might impede the investigation. It is not information that only the perpetrators would know.
Perhaps you need reminding that Scotty Reston, then Eashington Bureau Chief, had the story of the Bay of Pigs invasion before it happened. He personally saw JFK, who asked him to hold the story, and he did. When it was a disaster, Kennedy mused that maybe he should have let the Times publish.
Further, you should know that there is a much less free press in the UK. The state secrets privilege is paramount to the British government.
But the idea that publishing pictures of the backpack and detonator would somehow impede the investigation is laughable on its face. Do you think that the accomplices of Abedi were thinking that no one was looking for them until the pictures were run? Puh-leeze! Frankly, you are going to try a LOT harder to explain how this might impede the investigation. It is not information that only the perpetrators would know.
1
I was one of the many who wrote to the NYT editorial staff to express disagreement with their decision to post the bomb fragment pictures. This vague, tepid response does not sway me. In this time of extreme lack of faith in the media by many of our citizens, this decision provides more fodder for disdain.
13
If the bombing had been done in the United States and the New York Times had done the same thing, the New York Times people responsible for this highly-irresponsible action would have been greatly criticized and "heads might have rolled." But because the untimely revelations affected a different population, they are able to escape significant public criticism. This mentality on the part of the New York Times is wrong and should not continue.
6
Not a surprise here that Spayd wants to keep her job or that the Times expects authorities to beg them to do the right thing. Anyone remember Lichtblau and Risen revealing the program that successfully used SWIFT to track terrorist payments.
6
I recently subscribed to your digital edition as I felt that your paper had high journalistic standards and good judgement. The NYT failed on both counts in this instance. There was no difference between your actions and what the National Enquirer would have done. I expected more. I can pick up a sensationalist yellow rag at the supermarket check-out. There was a comment in the story that implied a defense to your actions by noting that others have subsequently published the photos. This is a childish argument on a number of grounds and one that I would not have accepted from any of my children. I hope that you are never in a position to take risks with a Canadian investigation.
10
I have no idea how the nytimes thought that publishing these photos was something that people needed to see, or what good it would do. It's clear that no consideration was given to whether any of the perceived benefits from publishing this information actually outweighed the considerable downsides. All I can see is that is was cheap tabloid sensationalism, designed to boost circulation.
What would the people of the U.S. have felt if it had been a U.K. paper jeopardising the investigation of such a horrific crime? Not to mention the devastating impact showing these pictures would have on anyone impacted by this event. These were real people with real families, and this should not be forgotten.
Shame on you - just because information becomes available it doesn't always need to be published. Publishing these photos was not exposing some kind of cover up, or shining a light into some dark corner for us. What it did do was cause further grief for a lot of people, and potentially put further lives at risk.
What would the people of the U.S. have felt if it had been a U.K. paper jeopardising the investigation of such a horrific crime? Not to mention the devastating impact showing these pictures would have on anyone impacted by this event. These were real people with real families, and this should not be forgotten.
Shame on you - just because information becomes available it doesn't always need to be published. Publishing these photos was not exposing some kind of cover up, or shining a light into some dark corner for us. What it did do was cause further grief for a lot of people, and potentially put further lives at risk.
9
"Ipsa scientia potestas est." (Knowledge itself is Power).
I completely support the NY Times decision. There IS a public benefit to showing the evidence from the crime scene. The more the public knows, the greater the chance terrorist attacks can be prevented.
The fact that the NY Times printed photos showing the components of the IED provides information to the general public that could create cue or algorithm that could prevent another attack. Just as the Tsnaraev brothers purchased pressure cookers and other bomb components, the public should be made aware of the trigger devices, batteries and other materials used by terrorists. This is not to say that terrorists will not use every method available to purchase these components in inconspicuous ways but knowing this information can provide the knowledge that can prevent a future attack.
How and why law enforcement, government officials and readers claim that the NY Times publication of these tools of terrorism could jeopardize the investigation, I simply do not understand. How does a photograph of the trigger device or shredded lead battery jeopardize an investigation? How will it undermine the conviction of a man who killed himself in an effort to hurt and kill others? Frankly, the more information released to the public, the better.
"Ipsa scientia potestas est."
I completely support the NY Times decision. There IS a public benefit to showing the evidence from the crime scene. The more the public knows, the greater the chance terrorist attacks can be prevented.
The fact that the NY Times printed photos showing the components of the IED provides information to the general public that could create cue or algorithm that could prevent another attack. Just as the Tsnaraev brothers purchased pressure cookers and other bomb components, the public should be made aware of the trigger devices, batteries and other materials used by terrorists. This is not to say that terrorists will not use every method available to purchase these components in inconspicuous ways but knowing this information can provide the knowledge that can prevent a future attack.
How and why law enforcement, government officials and readers claim that the NY Times publication of these tools of terrorism could jeopardize the investigation, I simply do not understand. How does a photograph of the trigger device or shredded lead battery jeopardize an investigation? How will it undermine the conviction of a man who killed himself in an effort to hurt and kill others? Frankly, the more information released to the public, the better.
"Ipsa scientia potestas est."
3
The New York Times reporting staff are a pathetic lot.
2
"It’s hard to say conclusively without knowing whether British officials made a specific case for how this would endanger their investigation. I’ve seen only general assertions of that claim without any specifics."
The Times editors should have been able to figure out the specifics on their own. The pictures told the bombers that the police had solid evidence that could lead directly to their capture. That must have been a factor in whatever they did next.
Also, it's your job to find out whether issues like this were discussed by the top editors. And their refusal to tell you is unconscionable.
The Times editors should have been able to figure out the specifics on their own. The pictures told the bombers that the police had solid evidence that could lead directly to their capture. That must have been a factor in whatever they did next.
Also, it's your job to find out whether issues like this were discussed by the top editors. And their refusal to tell you is unconscionable.
9
The public outcry over this is way overblown -- at least among the few commenters who showed up here in the comment section, some clearly politically motivated.
The pictures themselves were in line with those shown immediately after the Boston Marathon bombing, though they were restricted to bomb parts and not the more sensational fleeing wounded or lost body parts.
With Boston, the public and press participated in bringing the suspects to justice. So we've learned that the Brits do it differently. That's fine. But the piece by the NYT was certainly no more of a tipoff to potential suspects than the bombing itself and the release of the bomber's name.
The pictures themselves were in line with those shown immediately after the Boston Marathon bombing, though they were restricted to bomb parts and not the more sensational fleeing wounded or lost body parts.
With Boston, the public and press participated in bringing the suspects to justice. So we've learned that the Brits do it differently. That's fine. But the piece by the NYT was certainly no more of a tipoff to potential suspects than the bombing itself and the release of the bomber's name.
5
I'm a Brit living in the UK. I subscribe to the NYT; I sponsor a Student subscription; I believe in the vital importance of your publication and the role of your jornalists. But publishing this information, when you did, was plain wrong. A breathtaking display of a lack of integrity.
9
The Times just plain got it wrong this time. A complex piece made as part of a bomb most likely presents a path for investigators to trace through who produced it. Publishing the pictures of the device would make those responsible know what evidence the police have. With this warning they will clearly disappear. Your editor's statement that other papers also published is a very weak argument - most likely they simply followed the flawed decision of the Times.
6
I strongly disagree with the decision of the NYT to publish the photos and the information around them. That article and photos will clearly help our enemies while doing little to help readers understand what happened in Manchester.
Ii expect that a tabloid like the NY Post would do it but not the Times.
A mature, good judgment, understanding the need for holding back sensational photographs in the interest of supporting ongoing investigation is to be expected of the NYT, NOT THIS!
After reading the Times for 42 years I am ashamed to be its subscriber.
Ii expect that a tabloid like the NY Post would do it but not the Times.
A mature, good judgment, understanding the need for holding back sensational photographs in the interest of supporting ongoing investigation is to be expected of the NYT, NOT THIS!
After reading the Times for 42 years I am ashamed to be its subscriber.
10
"Why did The Times publish the evidence and how did it weigh the public interest in the information against any potential damage to the investigation?"
A question that this article asks but never really gets around to answering.
(The article author seems to lack the information necessary to answer it. For example, the author speculates as to whether the Times alerted the government and gave them a chance to object, but such speculation is of limited value. Whether the Times actually did so or not is a relevant question.)
Most of all, in this article the importance that justified publishing these photos is not argued and established. Just asserted.
I like the Times in most cases, but I'm skeptical of this decision and this article isn't giving me many reasons to change my mind.
A question that this article asks but never really gets around to answering.
(The article author seems to lack the information necessary to answer it. For example, the author speculates as to whether the Times alerted the government and gave them a chance to object, but such speculation is of limited value. Whether the Times actually did so or not is a relevant question.)
Most of all, in this article the importance that justified publishing these photos is not argued and established. Just asserted.
I like the Times in most cases, but I'm skeptical of this decision and this article isn't giving me many reasons to change my mind.
8
As soon as I saw the initial story's headline on my android, I did a double take. It was a bragging, tabloid-like one, It jarred my sensibilities as it showed the Times' key interest was in letting the world know "we have seen" , and "We have had access to..." the bomb materials. Who cares! There was no coverup here, No unreasonably long holding back of uncomfortable information by British authorities from the public.
My interest, as a professional geopolitical analyst, was what contribution, at an appropriate time and place, will the NYT make as, indeed, there is plenty of time to inform your mainly US readers, of the nature of this terrorist attack, and absolutely no need to be first ...
I'd hoped the NY Times would have journalist instincts more akin to the Financial Times' and not the latter's many salacious tabloid competitors in Great Britain. Tom O'Donnell, in Berlin
My interest, as a professional geopolitical analyst, was what contribution, at an appropriate time and place, will the NYT make as, indeed, there is plenty of time to inform your mainly US readers, of the nature of this terrorist attack, and absolutely no need to be first ...
I'd hoped the NY Times would have journalist instincts more akin to the Financial Times' and not the latter's many salacious tabloid competitors in Great Britain. Tom O'Donnell, in Berlin
8
The NYT's defense of its rush to publish the photographs and identify the bomber is completely unconvincing. What the public "needs" to know could have waited for confirmation from the British authorities. How can they make their case if they aren't contacted by the Times explaining what it has? Isn't this more about the Times perceived "right to scoop" rather than informing the public?
9
The NYT looked like smug armchair blabbermouths here by publishing the gory details of an ongoing British investigation. The American public is not in the need to know loop and most couldn't identify where Manchester is on a map.
Rather, the NYT should ask why reporters and American politicians are now fighting before elections, why our President is now pushing European ministers out of his way on camera and why our USA remains the most violent developed society on the planet. How is being boorish to our European allies going to benefit the American public?
Rather, the NYT should ask why reporters and American politicians are now fighting before elections, why our President is now pushing European ministers out of his way on camera and why our USA remains the most violent developed society on the planet. How is being boorish to our European allies going to benefit the American public?
9
It's called a scoop. Hey look at us we're number 1!
6
Are you saying that the New York Times received the photographs of the bomb details through official British channels and that now British officials are backpedaling by saying that they did not give you the photographs? Are you saying that the NYTimes received the information through official US government channels?
If the answers to these two questions are no, then it stands to reason that the NYTimes was not told how sensitive the information was, nor was it told that it was part of an ongoing investigation.
If the answer to either of the above questions is yes, then the official information channel must have failed to tell the New York Times that the information was not for distribution.
Given that the New York Times was the first newspaper in the entire world to publish the photographs, my thought is that the New York Times received the photos through unofficial channels, published them and then claimed that nobody told them not to publish them.
If the answers to these two questions are no, then it stands to reason that the NYTimes was not told how sensitive the information was, nor was it told that it was part of an ongoing investigation.
If the answer to either of the above questions is yes, then the official information channel must have failed to tell the New York Times that the information was not for distribution.
Given that the New York Times was the first newspaper in the entire world to publish the photographs, my thought is that the New York Times received the photos through unofficial channels, published them and then claimed that nobody told them not to publish them.
4
My reaction to seeing the bomb components in The Times: the photo looked like a "how to", or possibly worse, a badge of honor for the bomber to show his signature piece in a global newspaper. This is the kind of inspiration we don't need.
6
I thought the story was valuable. The first question I had when I heard about the bombing was what kind of device--how was it made, how did it wreak its destruction. The public needs to know how the authorities are doing keeping up with bomb evolution. Information cannot but help lead to preparedness.
1
Well, that was certainly an entertaining entry into weaseling out of a sticky wicket. Lots of "possibly" and "could have"; why not just ask the reporters and editors and report the answer?
Well, this way no one is accountable.
Well, this way no one is accountable.
6
Ms. Spayd's tepid, almost servile analysis clearly demonstrates that Mr. Baquet has finally found the lap dog public editor he's (presumably) always wanted. Jill Abramson, you are sorely missed at the once "paper of record".
12
"So should The Times have published? It’s hard to say conclusively without knowing whether British officials made a specific case for how this would endanger their investigation." I don't get it. The Times's public editor works for the Times, doesn't she? As such, is Ms. Spayd essentially admitting she's not entitled to ask the paper's own journalists whether or not they had a conversation crucial to justifying publication of this story? Or am I being asked to read between the lines and conclude that no such conversation took place because, if it had, Ms. Spayd would have reported it? Either way, this controversy calls into question the utility of the public editor to resolve satisfactorily sensitive journalistic issues of any kind.
9
When the loyal readers of the Times respond as strongly as they did to the photographs of the Manchester bombs, the leadership of the Times should review the process which led from leaked information to that front page story more seriously than they appear to have done. To have the Times public editor suggest that a forign government whose intelligence service shared this information with our intelligence service should have warned the Times not to publish this information is an inadequate response.. As someone who lived through the Marathon bombings, I know that those photographs and some of
the detail, in no way served the "public interest." In the end, it was about the value of the scoop: I.e. selling newspapers. The Times should be ashamed.
the detail, in no way served the "public interest." In the end, it was about the value of the scoop: I.e. selling newspapers. The Times should be ashamed.
14
This is a very disappointing piece. It is evasive, slippery even. You say the source "distributed" the photos. What does that mean? And you nowhere address the leak & publication of the name-- which would alert any comrades to make their escape or perhaps to move up any further planned attacks before they can be stopped.
You also give Trump fodder for his war against the media. I will be shocked if a times editor or reporter is not persecuted for this story!
You also give Trump fodder for his war against the media. I will be shocked if a times editor or reporter is not persecuted for this story!
5
The Times was simply wrong!
10
So the laughable justification is, "Well, we thought a lot about it". However, it's not the process that readers and British authorities are upset about, it's the final, and flawed, decision to publish sensitive forensic evidence in an investigation of global importance 2 days after the fact. This was published in a rush, as a scoop, and further damages the NYT's self-described reputation as thoughtful news.
10
Oh please! The public needs to know how yerrorists work? What did we learn? They carry backpacks ..... oh wait, that's been done before. They use small hard objects to cause far-reaching and maximum harm. Oh wait ..... that's been done so many times there's actually a word for it - shrapnel. They pre-plan and find holes in security ..... what a shocker. You have sunk to a low level NYT. It's a good thing you have great crossword puzzles or I'd drop you like a hot potato.
10
That was some hot shrapnel. Thanks NYT.
1
British papers did not publish such photos or names of the bomber even when they knew, out of respect for the investigation by authorities. Seeing the photos in your paper had alarm bells ringing throughout my body that this should not be published so soon. NYT you got it wrong, tabloid stuff......you guys are better than that.
6
Very disappointed in this defense of the decision to publish leaked photos. If the Times can't see they are endangering people, not informing them, then the press has shown their irresponsibility and should be understanding of the anger coming their way.
6
You got this wrong. It was voyeurism pure and simple and we learned nothing we didn't already know - a backpack, a bomb, a detonator, shrapnel.
7
The images of a shredded backpack and various crime scene photos were nothing but terror-porn. It did not serve a public interest to publish those. #NYTimesFail
6
In the current environment the NYT is in competition with the Washington Post regarding who can publish leaks the quickest. This story had no public interest, was based on another country's intelligence, and was done for ratings and to "make the Times great again"... They got this one wrong.
8
The nyt seems to think all reporters should have top security clearance and that the editors sit on the national security council and can disclose what they think best. Pompous.
8
I think you're wrong. This was not ours to publish and I disagree that the initial source of the information is responsible for babysitting the recipients of the information. This was not a need to know issue - sorry Times, Dean Baquet and Liz Spayd - your arguments are specious. You could tell readers about the makeup of bombs later not sooner. That is NOT time sensitive information. And, for the record, I'm almost always on your side - not this time.
8
It was completely irresponsible to publish any of this information, especially the name of the bomber, which only serves to alert suspects the police are frantically seeking. Further, it serves no purpose, whatsoever, to ensure "public safety". I presume the Times will exercise far better judgment going forward. I'm astonished by this lapse.
8
I don't need to see pictures of bomb materials to understand what has happened. I hope the NYT takes a step back and recognizes that the majority of its readers are in fact, readers. Ms Spayd's job seems to be defending the editor no matter what. She could just report on the overall readers' response.
6
You and and the rest of the editorial decision-makers at The NY Times stand alone in this case, in attempting to justify on the basis of a layperson's "need to know", disclosures that compromise early stages of a terrorist investigation. WE DO NOT NEED TO KNOW, more than we, as a global community, need to stand with the victims in the UK, to have progress made in bringing to justice these nearly inhuman agents of death, and to learn what can be learned to prevent their further such acts. Shame on the lot of you.
7
I really don't understand the uproar. Perhaps it's that we live in strange days, but this seems like manufactured anger and disappointment. Does anyone really believe that the publishing of these photos actively impeded the investigation? Do you trust either of the governments involved to use this as anything other than an excuse to restrict the press or justify a search and destroy mission for the leakers?
2
Since you have expressed the inability, unassisted, to generate a counter-argument to your gut hunch on this matter, see the lengthy response to ASB from CA above, for at least one way in which independent disclosures—unplanned by law enforcement seeking the perpetrators of a crime—can impede catching and convicting those responsible. Any first year law enforcement studies student can likely generate that simple foregoing insight, and a few more besides. The real answer to "I really don't understand..." is not to begin communicating, but to begin thinking and research.
Perhaps the real problem is the sensationalism, the need to vie with papers like the National Enquirer, the insult to literate and sophisticated Times readers who do not need or want pictures of bloody rags and pieces of bombs in order to process the horror of what happened to 22 little girls. My heart goes out to the parents of those children who were murdered by an angry, damaged young man who was directed/inspired by a known adversary of the civilized world. That adversary got the publicity it wanted for further recruitment.
I am surprised by the reader backlash. When I saw the photo of the detonator, I did not click on it. The story looked boring to me. I was not concerned to know the details of how the bomb was made or exploded. (And I am a lawyer and a former journalist.) it was a bomb in a backpack. I didn't care what color the backpack was or what size it was, etc.
I wondered why that story was front and center for more than a day.
But I understand England's justified anger if American officials leaked their confidential investigative gathering. We need our English allies. And their trust. We have a clown in the Oval Office and Orwellian leaders in the House and Senate. Piggy, from Lord of the Flies, is our Senate Leader. Our government has been hijacked by the worst elements of our culture and we ain't looking so good to the rest of the world right now.
The bigger story is why we risked alienating our trusted English allies for the sake of a story that was not really of public interest. I think the Times (which I love) needs to explain this in more detail and the explainer needs to know more about what happened than this one apparently does.
I wondered why that story was front and center for more than a day.
But I understand England's justified anger if American officials leaked their confidential investigative gathering. We need our English allies. And their trust. We have a clown in the Oval Office and Orwellian leaders in the House and Senate. Piggy, from Lord of the Flies, is our Senate Leader. Our government has been hijacked by the worst elements of our culture and we ain't looking so good to the rest of the world right now.
The bigger story is why we risked alienating our trusted English allies for the sake of a story that was not really of public interest. I think the Times (which I love) needs to explain this in more detail and the explainer needs to know more about what happened than this one apparently does.
7
Disgust barely makes it here. The complacent answer from the public editor just amplifies the point . Once it had the leaked information, did the Times editor reach out to security personnel to enquire whether the images could give cover to a bombmaker who might well be still at large? Clearly not. If the actions of the Times enable him or her to successfully mount another attack, then your newspaper is indirectly responsible for the subsequent carnage. There is no public interest defense here. Shame on you.
6
How can Liz Spayd possibly come to any conclusion on the rightness of the decision of the Times to publish the forensic photographs when, according to her own admission, none of the writers and editors involved in the decision to publish will talk to her? I don't know anything more now than before reading her article, just as I know nothing more about the Manchester bombing now than before seeing the photos. What I do know is that her colleagues don't talk to her, so why would I bother to read her in the future.
7
What is troubling to me is how many people uncritically accept the standard police line about "jeopardizing an ongoing investigation". Even worse, some of these people argue that news organizations should ask the police for permission to publish material that, while disturbing and scary to look at, is unquestionably a matter of public interest, given that this was a terrorist attack against children in a public place with many casualties.
While Britain's authorities are rightly pissed that its U.S. counterparts can't keep a secret, and it's not clear that they were asked for comment prior to publishing, the claim that this information will jeopardize the investigation is bogus. For one thing, the crime *already happened*. The bomb exploded. That, more than any pictures of the scene after the fact, would have tipped off the bomb-maker and his cohorts that we'd be coming after them. What else did we learn? That the bomb was in a department store backpack? That terrorists use hardware supplies as shrapnel? These tactics are already common knowledge, and the fact they continue to be used shows how difficult it is to prevent this sort of lone wolf attack (a lesson that is also in the public interest).
The New York Times exists to publish news. Short of information that puts someone's life in immediate jeopardy, or is obscene, it has a duty to publish and not to withhold news on grounds that it will embarrass the authorities or upset our natural complacency.
While Britain's authorities are rightly pissed that its U.S. counterparts can't keep a secret, and it's not clear that they were asked for comment prior to publishing, the claim that this information will jeopardize the investigation is bogus. For one thing, the crime *already happened*. The bomb exploded. That, more than any pictures of the scene after the fact, would have tipped off the bomb-maker and his cohorts that we'd be coming after them. What else did we learn? That the bomb was in a department store backpack? That terrorists use hardware supplies as shrapnel? These tactics are already common knowledge, and the fact they continue to be used shows how difficult it is to prevent this sort of lone wolf attack (a lesson that is also in the public interest).
The New York Times exists to publish news. Short of information that puts someone's life in immediate jeopardy, or is obscene, it has a duty to publish and not to withhold news on grounds that it will embarrass the authorities or upset our natural complacency.
2
Pure greed drove the decision to print the Intel. NYT, like any other business, has an obligation to increase profits to keep the shareholders and Carlos Slim happy. The "journalism" angle is as good a place as any to hide from the decision. But no one is fooled. Now America is less safe because US intelligence agencies can no longer be trusted to safeguard secrets or protect sources. And we already know you won't lift a finger to bring the traitor who sold you the intel to justice. Don't bore us with that lecture. Great job, now give pat yourselves on the back and give yourselves a raise.
3
Personally, regardless of your "tough decisions" yadda, I think you made a very poor choice towards sensationalism to run the evidence photos. And I thought that immediately when I saw that piece of bloody shrapnel on the "front page" of your site. I could not imagine how such publicizing such images could possibly help an early and complex criminal investigation.
Very poor, trashy choice for "the world's newspaper ". Someone's head should roll over this. Probably yours.
Very poor, trashy choice for "the world's newspaper ". Someone's head should roll over this. Probably yours.
5
NYTimes, why do you censor my comments. I did not say anything inappropriate..
1
"The judgment is that there is a public benefit to telling people how terrorists work, including the makeup of their bombs, the kinds of packs they carry."
As is often true, again Liz Spayd acts as apologist for the Times. Here she supports the non-response of Dean Baquet who fails to address why the Times rushed to print. What was the urgency? Why did the public have to know NOW? Why weren't other considerations more urgent?
Commenters here have creamed the Times with good reason. To that I'd ask: Is Liz Spayd supposed to be an apologist, or is she supposed to be a conscience, an adjudicator?
As is often true, again Liz Spayd acts as apologist for the Times. Here she supports the non-response of Dean Baquet who fails to address why the Times rushed to print. What was the urgency? Why did the public have to know NOW? Why weren't other considerations more urgent?
Commenters here have creamed the Times with good reason. To that I'd ask: Is Liz Spayd supposed to be an apologist, or is she supposed to be a conscience, an adjudicator?
5
I support The Times' decision to publish. I have read the comments and they erroneously suggest that the outrage over publishing represents an overwhelming number of readers. That's motivated writing and an unsubstantiated opinion unless referring to a majority of readers in a specific jurisdiction (say Russia) that in any case may be unhappy generally with whatever The Times has to publish.
How does the publishing of the information specifically jeopardize the investigation? Will the people involved in it have not thought about the possibility that someone will take photographs of the scene after the fact?
The information was not insensitive to anyone's sensibilities. There were no sensationalist close-ups. I don't understand the outrage, except as an opportunity to attack The Times.
Per comments: How did publishing the pictures help the Times increase sales? Did people sign on to The Times just to view the pictures that they hadn't seen elsewhere (say NBC news and other news outlets that did cover the same)? Is that how people sign on and become paying members of online news? Pish tosh. As the Brits would say.
How does the publishing of the information specifically jeopardize the investigation? Will the people involved in it have not thought about the possibility that someone will take photographs of the scene after the fact?
The information was not insensitive to anyone's sensibilities. There were no sensationalist close-ups. I don't understand the outrage, except as an opportunity to attack The Times.
Per comments: How did publishing the pictures help the Times increase sales? Did people sign on to The Times just to view the pictures that they hadn't seen elsewhere (say NBC news and other news outlets that did cover the same)? Is that how people sign on and become paying members of online news? Pish tosh. As the Brits would say.
1
Of course the NY Times should have published those photographs. How did their publication hinder the investigation? I would argue it may have helped identify the other participants. Any police department relies on leads by the public to help determine the direction of any investigation.
Not sure I understand the complaints coming from British law enforcement that the publication has compromised their investigation. England has a long tradition of being exceptionally tight in releasing information to the public.
Sorry folks, but I still stand by the First Amendment, and sometimes press freedom makes for some controversial decisions. Keep being controversial, NY Times. We need you now more than ever.
Not sure I understand the complaints coming from British law enforcement that the publication has compromised their investigation. England has a long tradition of being exceptionally tight in releasing information to the public.
Sorry folks, but I still stand by the First Amendment, and sometimes press freedom makes for some controversial decisions. Keep being controversial, NY Times. We need you now more than ever.
3
Sorry NYT, you blew this one. Please, please, please apologize. Stop with the justification for what you did. You are destroying your credibility. Seriously, I am shocked that you stand by your decision. If the U.K. is upset then you were WRONG!!!!!!! You appear to addicted to clicks from your subscribers. STOP IT.
7
Let's not pretend that publishing these photos so quickly was for the public's interest. This was a scoop and the Times ran with it. Why don't you use some of you investigative journalism skills to uncover how and why this happened? That would be in the public's interest for sure, but I doubt we'll see it.
2
What a quagmire. When and where does the Public have the so-called Right to Know? That's almost like saying "When exactly does Day become Night?" It's a judgement call. With the internet and smart devices, everyone on this planet is now as so-called Reporter, Cinematographer, Photographer, Editor and need I say more? For me, I'd much rather have a professional making those decisions than getting my news reports from a novice. At least with the Times and others, I'm getting a much more reliable source so–I'm not about to cancel my subscription to the Times for this. It was a judgement call and I really don't see why it should have been kept away from the public. If the public knows what those crazies are up to and using to kill people, it makes us much more aware of what we should be looking for.
I am disappointed. Not in the NY Times but the readers who are complaining. The danger of death by a suicide bomber is becoming greater every day. People need to be informed. People need to know how bombers get their bombs in position to do the most damage. Will people now be more wary and watchful of young men with backpacks walking through crowds. I hope so The more we know about the bomber and his methods and the damage he can cause the better prepared we can be. Thank you, NYT.
1
The backpack was left outside in order to murder the young people as they left the concert. Security will now have to expand well beyond the borders of a concert hall. A backback was left on a sidewalk by the Boston Bombers, and they walked away. This damaged young man stayed and blew himself up.
NYT got this wrong. And this follow up story doesn't clarify anything... if you don't know the details of the internal NYT conversations - what are you writing about?
The photos do nothing to advance knowledge of a bomb's makeup... report the news. Stop trying to sell the news.
The photos do nothing to advance knowledge of a bomb's makeup... report the news. Stop trying to sell the news.
3
Am I the only person who was actually grateful for the information that the Times published?
1
This is an absolutely arrogant response to complaints. Despite the publication (and leak) stopping information sharing between police forces, despite the British police making an official complaint about the leaks, and despite our Prime Minister making a complaint direct to POTUS, the Public Editor of the NYT is unable to see that the decision to publish was a terrible and unethical decision.
'Explaining how terrorists work is important journalism' - we knew how the terrorist worked, fine grain detail at this stage was a job for the investigators not the public worldwide.
'Explaining how terrorists work is important journalism' - we knew how the terrorist worked, fine grain detail at this stage was a job for the investigators not the public worldwide.
4
I'm sorry, I love the NYT and freedom of speech, but obviously that info should not have been released---and shame on the NYT for defending their decision.
We are fighting terrorism, and it is important not to disclose how terrorists are caught. You do not release info showing what is not destroyed in an explosion. Now they know what to avoid next time. They likely thought that ID cards were destroyed. Or that the authorities can tell if it came from a vest or a backpack. It was a blueprint of what mistakes are made and how they can be caught, or prevented.
The NYT knew this, and decided that releasing the story was more important than shielding law enforcement info and methods.
Shame on the NYT. Even we liberals know that there are limits to what you publish. Good lord, that was irresponsible!
We are fighting terrorism, and it is important not to disclose how terrorists are caught. You do not release info showing what is not destroyed in an explosion. Now they know what to avoid next time. They likely thought that ID cards were destroyed. Or that the authorities can tell if it came from a vest or a backpack. It was a blueprint of what mistakes are made and how they can be caught, or prevented.
The NYT knew this, and decided that releasing the story was more important than shielding law enforcement info and methods.
Shame on the NYT. Even we liberals know that there are limits to what you publish. Good lord, that was irresponsible!
6
A similar wishy washy editorial in The Guardian today.
And you have both got it wrong.
There is or was a criminal investigation underway. Someone sold those materials to the terrorist and likely someone else purchased them for him. That means when they see those photos information has passed that help the terrorists they have been forewarned. Do you not see this. Try thinking like human beings rather than journalists for once.
And you have both got it wrong.
There is or was a criminal investigation underway. Someone sold those materials to the terrorist and likely someone else purchased them for him. That means when they see those photos information has passed that help the terrorists they have been forewarned. Do you not see this. Try thinking like human beings rather than journalists for once.
4
Shame on the NYT. You have become a tabloid. And while another 2o plus Christians have just been slaughtered in Egypt, all you can write about is Trump, Trump, Trump. It also seems your journalists have one verb and its derivatives in their vocabulary: collide and collusion. Sounds like a car race to me.
5
This article just feels like the Times is circling the wagons. It also seems that the motive was to sell newpapers by being the first to report. I am aware that newspapers do sit on info when there is a serious ongoing investigation. Having read the article there was nothing that affected my immediate being (i.e., avoid blue backpacks?). It did give some indication to the possible network (if it exists) that the police might be near or have key information on their identities.
As an aside, this shift in news reporting to being just another media company gives me pause to consider if I really want to keep my subscription. Examples include "Got a confidential tip" and "support the mission of Times" found on the front page to calling everything emailed a "news alert" when clearly they are not;. Just a means to get me to click onto the page as a boost to your ad revenue.
As an aside, this shift in news reporting to being just another media company gives me pause to consider if I really want to keep my subscription. Examples include "Got a confidential tip" and "support the mission of Times" found on the front page to calling everything emailed a "news alert" when clearly they are not;. Just a means to get me to click onto the page as a boost to your ad revenue.
2
I believe that there is an important difference between new and information. Yes, publishing these photographs provided readers with information but not with news. The details shown in the photographs did not tell me anything meaningful about the bombing in Manchester. In fact, I would argue that they told me nothing -- full stop. I am not certain how much the publication of these images will interfere or has interfered with the investigation. I doubt that it has helped or will help.
Publishing these photographs was no "whistle blowing." There was no cover-up in progress. I failed (and still fail) to see the value in publishing them.
Simply because one can do something does not mean that one should do something. Sometimes, responsible journalism means not publishing something. I think this was such an occasion.
I trust the NYT will be more responsible in the future.
Respectfully yours,
John Nezlek
Publishing these photographs was no "whistle blowing." There was no cover-up in progress. I failed (and still fail) to see the value in publishing them.
Simply because one can do something does not mean that one should do something. Sometimes, responsible journalism means not publishing something. I think this was such an occasion.
I trust the NYT will be more responsible in the future.
Respectfully yours,
John Nezlek
2
Everyone knew it was a suicide bomber from the getgo. What, exactly, did publishing those photos of detail add to the general public's knowledge? To the 99.999% of your readers who have no inclination toward bomb making, publication of those photos added zero to the story. Very bad call on the part of The NY Times indeed!
3
Good call - I support the Times. No one has made a compelling argument for not publishing this information and I can't see how the method by which this information was obtained isn't really their objection. If the authorities gave the nytimes this information it would have been published and read with no complaints so don't tell me this is the nytimes being crass.
1
I believe leaking information on an investigation while the investigation is in progress is reprehensible.The efforts by the Times to justify are lame and unconvincing.Does the Times have any intention of reporting on the story about the NSA and its illegal activities during the Obama administration or since not leaked but obtained legally not worth reporting on?
1
Writing that nothing in the story directly stated the source is like Trump saying to the Israelis he didn't say it was Israel. There is a public benefit to telling the public how terrorists work, but not before all persons of interest have been found and rounded up and The Times may have jeopardized that. It was reckless and imprudent. There is always a strong public interest in the public knowing information leaks by government, but timing is everything and I believe the Times made a mistake in this case.
2
The most ridiculous moment of this whole instance When yesterday after all these pandemonium about leak NYT marking comments that stats Trump has leaked these photos. I mean seriously? Trump will share pictures to Falling NYT (as he calls)? Not in this life. One suggestion to NYT Don't stoop so low for cheap publicity.
3
Now sanctimonious Trump will use the outrage of UK PM May as yet another excuse to crush journalists and media freedoms at home. The early by the NYT precipitated that, but Trump will use any excuse to close down free expression and access to information. Wait for him to come home and get his followers sounding all hot and bothered about it too, making political capital out of it... Just don't let him use it as a cudgel to beat the intelligence community too, at a time when we need them to produce the goods on him.
2
As a doctor working in the region I have had to deal with some of the consequences.
The editorial decision was poor and the justification given here is flimsy. Outrage is not a strong enough word and a meaningful apology would be helpful.
I have just viewed this page to gain an insight into this 'newspaper's' perspective and to see if there is any contrition or even an attempt at genuine understanding. There isn't. Thanks to those who have made considered contributions to the debate.
Here ends any interest I may have ever had with NYT.
The editorial decision was poor and the justification given here is flimsy. Outrage is not a strong enough word and a meaningful apology would be helpful.
I have just viewed this page to gain an insight into this 'newspaper's' perspective and to see if there is any contrition or even an attempt at genuine understanding. There isn't. Thanks to those who have made considered contributions to the debate.
Here ends any interest I may have ever had with NYT.
3
I can't think of any argument the Brtish or the Americans could make that would show how displaying thoes pictures would jeopardize any investigation. I support the Times decision to publish whatever photos it has to backup it's reporting. Your coverage of the event was far from sensasionalism, (compared to Fox News or CNN), I though it was just good journalism. What do these people want, a description of the photos without any evidence? That's just poor reporting. Let the people be informed and knowlagable about what is happening in the word. Shame that news organizations take so much flack for doing their job and educating us on world events.
1
Thank you Nytimes, for having the courage to tell the truth, no matter how terrible.
1
I think we have perhaps all forgotten the meaning of journalism. The job of the NYT is to publish as much factual, relevant information as they can confirm and cohesively assemble. If some of this information is classified, or sensitive, it is the governments job to prove to the NYT that there is a compelling reason not to publish it.
Putting that onus on the government is why our freedom of press has survived for so long. To the point where now, in these comments, it appears that some of us are taking it for granted.
Everyone has an opinion about whether or not the NYT should have published this. But strictly in terms of fulfilling their mission, they published a factual story that no government appears to have proved damaging. I understand that some people do not like that it may have been sensitive information, or that the public didn't have a "compelling need" to know, but arguably most people in their daily lives have a compelling need to know very little. That doesn't stop people from wanting to know more, to have the facts, and to assemble a cohesive narrative.
Putting that onus on the government is why our freedom of press has survived for so long. To the point where now, in these comments, it appears that some of us are taking it for granted.
Everyone has an opinion about whether or not the NYT should have published this. But strictly in terms of fulfilling their mission, they published a factual story that no government appears to have proved damaging. I understand that some people do not like that it may have been sensitive information, or that the public didn't have a "compelling need" to know, but arguably most people in their daily lives have a compelling need to know very little. That doesn't stop people from wanting to know more, to have the facts, and to assemble a cohesive narrative.
2
A more compelling narrative would have been written after the investigation and capture was completed. It was pure tabloid garbage complete with pictures of bloody rags and pieces of bloody shrapnel. Imagine the grief of the parents of those little girls as they saw that blood and bits of metal; they could then imagine what had struck their children, and wonder if the blood belonged to one of them. It was disgusting on so many levels.
I consider the NYTimes' decision to publish the detailed information on the Manchester bomb disgraceful. It was either ignorant - not appreciating the implications for pursuit of the people and networks behind the bombing - or arrogant - some distorted view of the public interest, or both. I am a member of the public, and I want to understand how terrorism works, but NOT DURING AN ACTIVE INVESTIGATION. I am also a devoted NYT subscriber, but I am horrified at the paper's decision. It suggests to me that the Editor is indeed locked too deeply into a bubble of abstract competing principles to appreciate the impact of specific security information on the matter at hand. Please wake up, and smell the gun-powder!
Shame, shame, shame.
Shame, shame, shame.
2
Publishing unauthorized and leaked photos serves to steadily undermine the New York Times authority on other matters of leaked information. It serves the narrative that the leaks in USA politics over the last few months are somehow part of the same overzealous press, while in fact they may be relevant to our democracy. Playing gotcha on a constant basis is causing people to tune out, which is not healthy.
4
I am a Times subscriber disgusted by the self-congratulatory tone of The Times' stance on publishing photos of evidence from an ongoing investigation. Obviously wrong on the face of it, and, I wonder, could it possibly be used later to undermine the British prosecutors' case.
I'm American and very embarrassed by The Times' behavior and subsequent smirking explanation.
I'm American and very embarrassed by The Times' behavior and subsequent smirking explanation.
2
I object not to its appearance but the timing of the appearance. It could indeed inform other terrorists in the network (if indeed it exists) to hide or dispose of all similar materials to avoid capture and indictment. I t would have been far more useful to wait, and provide this material later so that the public can identify such materials when they see them FOLLOWING the capture of this network.
3
They say a photo is more powerful than words. I live in Atlanta and Chelsea(London). I have colleagues in Manchester. One friend recanted to me the words of a neighbor who saw your photos. She was dealing with the death of her daughter. Upon seeing your "journalism" she fainted in despair. She's fine now perhaps. Your article served no journalistic purpose whatsoever.
2
No, it is not hard to say. NYT should not have published.
3
Of course you support your decision. Hard to eat crow when you might be partly responsible for aiding terrorist that targeted children.
2
The days of publish and be damned seem to be returning, and rightly so. There is a war against the media regardless of what it publishes, fakery and bias being the obvious charges levied. If the matter is presented to the public domain, it must be published. The alternative is self censorship of the press. Sensitivity to victims, frankly, is a secondary concern when balanced against the interests of the wider public. Too much can be obfuscated by a liable agency unprepared to disclose: how did this murderer get those components into the Manchester Arena anyway?
Abedi was a sophisticated killer in that he had the technology, resources, and motivation to kill himself and others with a sophisticated device. Many readers of the NYT would know what they were looking at when they saw these pictures and had a better understanding of the murderous event, and that is the ultimate purpose of news.
I am originally from the Manchester area and the people killed and maimed were my peers. I grieve for their loss, but I also grieve for the onslaught on the media which should be a bastion of democracy. Instead, the establishment rails against it at every turn, apparently wary of being undone by diligent reporting. The official release of gun camera footage from air strikes with a whooping pilot providing the soundtrack is much more distressing to me than imagery of bomb components. Ask the families of his victims how they feel about that.
Abedi was a sophisticated killer in that he had the technology, resources, and motivation to kill himself and others with a sophisticated device. Many readers of the NYT would know what they were looking at when they saw these pictures and had a better understanding of the murderous event, and that is the ultimate purpose of news.
I am originally from the Manchester area and the people killed and maimed were my peers. I grieve for their loss, but I also grieve for the onslaught on the media which should be a bastion of democracy. Instead, the establishment rails against it at every turn, apparently wary of being undone by diligent reporting. The official release of gun camera footage from air strikes with a whooping pilot providing the soundtrack is much more distressing to me than imagery of bomb components. Ask the families of his victims how they feel about that.
1
While I do appreciate the attempt to explain the actions of editors at NYT for publishing these disturbing photographs, I do not feel this response justifies the actions in any cogent way.
2
I'm disappointed in the New York Times for publishing these pictures. I feel that it is little more than profiting from a horrific spectacle without true regard for the impact this may have on the investigation, the victims and community affected and what this says to the world about the perspective of the USA.
This type of coverage makes me a little embarrassed to be an American.
This type of coverage makes me a little embarrassed to be an American.
2
The outrage of readers reactions seems overblown. Do you all really not recall that governments will in every case plead that publication of information they do not release themselves will harm an investigation, or hurt someone?
The claim that this provides needless publicity to the monsters who are behind the bombing makes no sense. Nothing that the New York Times could do short of interviewing one of them and publishing that interview could have increased the publicity on this story.
Government officials who want to cling to secrecy in every case should be required to provide a convincing argument to suppress legitimate news. This fetish of conforming to government whims when the spectre of terrorism is involved is a chilling reminder of the liberties we so easily give up when we are afraid.
The Times did its job, once again.
The claim that this provides needless publicity to the monsters who are behind the bombing makes no sense. Nothing that the New York Times could do short of interviewing one of them and publishing that interview could have increased the publicity on this story.
Government officials who want to cling to secrecy in every case should be required to provide a convincing argument to suppress legitimate news. This fetish of conforming to government whims when the spectre of terrorism is involved is a chilling reminder of the liberties we so easily give up when we are afraid.
The Times did its job, once again.
1
Having worked for another major newspaper I have no doubt that the discussion on whether or not to publish took place - it always does when there's any question about the public's right to know. However, two things about this situation are troubling: that the Public Editor does not appear to have a seat at the table when these issues are discussed, and that the Times appears to have wanted the "scoop" so badly that better heads did not prevail. What was so important about the bomber's name and the photos of the blast site that couldn't wait for publication at least until the British police had finished their initial investigation? As for relying on the authorities to inform as to whether or not publication would hamper their efforts, if the material was indeed leaked they wouldn't have known before seeing it in the paper/online - too late.
Sorry, NYT, bad decision. And if we're going to have a so-called "public editor," she at least needs to be included in newsroom discussions not only as the voice of the public but as the conduit to the public for newspaper decisions. For her to have to speculate on any of this gives the lie to the purpose for her position in the first place.
Sorry, NYT, bad decision. And if we're going to have a so-called "public editor," she at least needs to be included in newsroom discussions not only as the voice of the public but as the conduit to the public for newspaper decisions. For her to have to speculate on any of this gives the lie to the purpose for her position in the first place.
3
When police are investigating a crime they need time to analyse the evidence and ask witnesses and others for information. Even they don't know how long it takes to get all the crucial evidence, and they don't know which piece of evidence will lead directly to the suspects. When asked by a reporter or newspaper why certain pieces of evidence should not be published they may not have the communication skills to explain their thoughts Giving them the time they need to find the criminals is a reasonable request.
2
So, is it "everyone else is doing it" or "everyone else is making money doing it"?
2
More NYT self righteousness. As soon as I saw the original story, I knew it was a problem. Now I will go a step further; did the NYT and its liberal bent attempt to further smear Trump's administration, knowing that by publishing the photos as Trump went to Europe, he would come under fire for the leak of the photos?
1
This comes across as thoughtlessly and lazily defensive, with no apparent regard for the much broader picture. Journalism is in such a precarious but vital position at the moment, where every effort must be made not only to insure accuracy and integrity, but to make clear to readers such efforts are a priority. This reaction gave exactly the opposite impression and was especially disappointing given how recently, yet enthusiastically, I became a subscriber.
As an example of this frustration, I'm perplexed as to how the editor can write such a response, about its own editorial process, and think the following would help their argument: "Most likely that happened in this case as well, although editors have declined to discuss such conversations."
If you're defending your editorial process but won't discuss it, the tinge of hypocrisy is too distracting to allow building of trust (which seems more important now than ever).
As an example of this frustration, I'm perplexed as to how the editor can write such a response, about its own editorial process, and think the following would help their argument: "Most likely that happened in this case as well, although editors have declined to discuss such conversations."
If you're defending your editorial process but won't discuss it, the tinge of hypocrisy is too distracting to allow building of trust (which seems more important now than ever).
3
The photos are nothing more than clickbait. It would not hurt the 'public interest' in any way if their publication were delayed a week..
3
"Prurient interest" sums it up,
3
Still sounds like NYT couldn't resist a scoop. And in the process handed the Drumpf administration a cudgel to beat the "Deep State" that leaked information that could help terrorist see up to date details of an ongoing investigation and figure out what "worked" well. Now they will all be more reticent about leaking all kinds of things, including conflicts of interest, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. Thanks for nothing.
1
The "outrage" of British politicians over publication has nothing to do with the danger of compromising the investigation and everything to do with delaying and diffusing the release of information to cover up their own failures. They failed to stop Abedi despite numerous advance warnings about him being radicailzed and they allowed him to go to and come back from Libya even though he was on the watch list. The PM (who was Home Secretary for years with responsibility for this area) and the current Home Secretary should resign immediately. Instead they are peddling all the usual waffle about communitiues standing together and the tragedy of it all as though it has nothing to do witb them. The faux outrage over the US media is a desperate attempt to find a scapegoat and save their own skins.
3
Canceling my subscription. The NYT should have known better than publish information that has little bearing to its readers. What was the purpose of publishing the pictures? What did it served? It's for this reason Donald Trump is president today due to our current news climate - rating first, accountability later, if any. We give too much attention to terrorists, murderers, and Donald Trump before & after the presidential election with little public interest long as it drives ratings and clicks journalists of today careless about reporting the news. I personally don't watch capable news thus my subscription to the NYT but it seems it too has lost its ethical boundaries of authentic journalism.
2
My issue with the publication of the Manchester bomb components is the timing. The NYT should not conflate the hasty publication of the images with the "right to know." What "right to know"would be lost by publishing after the conclusion of the active investigation to catch all individuals associated with the perpetrator?
2
Liz,
You choked on this one. "I don't know enough" is no excuse. In this case there was no compelling need for the public to know IMMEDIATELY and the Times should have held off a few days in order to give the authorities time to investigate without tipping their hand.
You choked on this one. "I don't know enough" is no excuse. In this case there was no compelling need for the public to know IMMEDIATELY and the Times should have held off a few days in order to give the authorities time to investigate without tipping their hand.
3
I fundamentally disagree with the premise expressed here: that the burden falls on government authorities to show that secrets leaked by anonymous sources have a need to be kept secret. News outlets have to bear some responsibility for showing discretion about information that is being shared without attribution. If someone gossips something salacious to me about my neighbor, it is not 100% my neighbor's responsibility to explain why I should not release the details on social media. The issue here was the compelling interest of showing the public within 24 hours details about how the bomb was made. There was very little public interest served by doing so, but the odds were high that it would reveal much to the terror groups about forensic capabilities and likely tracing measures and would trigger even more urgent flight by possible co-conspirators. The Times has been great lately, but on this one you showed poor discretion.
2
Well, let British intel organizations withhold, say, for six months, cooperation with US intel people who leak. Which country would suffer from potential damages? At the same time, let's see who would benefit.
Journalists don't need to consider such outcomes, do they? It's someone else' territory. Yet, Trump presidency must be happy with the development.
Journalists don't need to consider such outcomes, do they? It's someone else' territory. Yet, Trump presidency must be happy with the development.
1
You published to sell newspapers and gain clicks pure and simple. If this had been done by a Murdoch publication your editorials would be hysterical with condemnation in league with your bedfellows at CNN, BBC etc. One rule etc..
2
So, wait, you don't know anything about the Time's decision to publish or it's process? I don't see how that makes you an effective advocate for the public interest at the paper. Your exercise in hypotheticals is useless. The public's anger at this is particualry justified given the damage it has had to relations with one of our closest allies. Do you really believe that the public's need to see this particular back-pack bomb was worth that?
3
"I start from the position that a publication’s job is to inform the public, and if government officials believe information could jeopardize crime or intelligence operations, the onus is on them to make their case."
Ms Spayd, this is rubbish. How do you think the authorities are supposed to know that you are going to publish?
" This was not highly classified information. And it did not violate anyone’s privacy. Nor was it insensitive."
Isn't it obvious that the issue is not about the fact that the NYT published this information? It is about when you decided to publish it.
"The photographs and story are unquestionably compelling and provide insight into an event of crucial public interest. That doesn’t mean the public has some vital need to see these photos; but by that standard neither do they need to see plenty of other stories and photographs."
Nobody has suggested that the public should not see the photos. They just should not see them at a time when their publication may impede the investigation. Why are you avoiding the point?
The NYT's attempt to cover up a mistake instead of apologising is a scandal. It shows no sign that the behaviour will not be repeated. The NYT owes the victims' families, the Manchester police and the people who will have to live in greater fear of attack a sincere apology.
Ms Spayd, this is rubbish. How do you think the authorities are supposed to know that you are going to publish?
" This was not highly classified information. And it did not violate anyone’s privacy. Nor was it insensitive."
Isn't it obvious that the issue is not about the fact that the NYT published this information? It is about when you decided to publish it.
"The photographs and story are unquestionably compelling and provide insight into an event of crucial public interest. That doesn’t mean the public has some vital need to see these photos; but by that standard neither do they need to see plenty of other stories and photographs."
Nobody has suggested that the public should not see the photos. They just should not see them at a time when their publication may impede the investigation. Why are you avoiding the point?
The NYT's attempt to cover up a mistake instead of apologising is a scandal. It shows no sign that the behaviour will not be repeated. The NYT owes the victims' families, the Manchester police and the people who will have to live in greater fear of attack a sincere apology.
4
I subscribed to the NYT because I hold the journalism in high regard.
I am infuriated by both the article and the miserable justification because it is simply just sensationalism with a total disregard to the UK police, the victims and those of us living in one of the European cities affected by a terrorist attack.
I am very distressed because you provided detailed information for anyone wanting to copy the attack and that makes me feel unsafe and worried.
This is really an inexcusable article!
I am infuriated by both the article and the miserable justification because it is simply just sensationalism with a total disregard to the UK police, the victims and those of us living in one of the European cities affected by a terrorist attack.
I am very distressed because you provided detailed information for anyone wanting to copy the attack and that makes me feel unsafe and worried.
This is really an inexcusable article!
2
The whingers and whiners need to get over themselves. They watch and love far worse on television and movie dramas every night. If they can't handle news of the real world they're in for quite a shock when it comes crashing into their sheltered lives.
2
The NYT 'scoop' and publication of the bomber's name gave his contacts time to disappear before they could be located and arrested by the UK security services. It gave them time to dispose of, or disperse their bomb making equipment - and any bombs already prepared. After 07-07-2005 in London, most adult UK residents know very well what the after effects of a suicide bomber's attack look like. We don't need photographs, and we don't need our security services impeded in their investigations.
3
A completely unverifiable statement to back up unjustified outrage
I can't agree with you on this decision. Revealing the police's photographs of the crime scene while the police were still rounding up possible accomplices had the potential to alert them as to the likelihood of their group having been identified. I signed up to get this paper when you supported free speech over the Hamilton nonsense from Trump, so I hope you won't mind me telling you how I feel about this. I'm still supporting you as a paper of course!
I could accept the 'public interest vs the need to investigate' argument if the pictures were all that the NYT released. What this article conveniently forgets is that the paper also published the attacker's name before the British authorities were prepared to do so - that, for me, is clear evidence of the NYT placing sensationalism or news-scooping above the public interest. Armed police raids took place on houses around Manchester in the hours after publication. We can't know at this time if people had the chance to flee before they were arrested.
Beyond this, though, I find it extremely disappointing that the paper is throwing out lots of abrasive partial justifications, a la Trump. The Morning briefing says "Leaks are far more common in Washington...because of a stronger tradition of a free press". This article seeks to cast doubt on the exact source - intimating that it may have been British. The executive editor says that "it did not violate anyone's privacy", but the mayor of Manchester and the families of the victims disagree.
I have a huge amount of respect for the NYT, but I get the sense that the staff have worked themselves into a war mindset through their confrontations with the White House, and this has spilled over into an ill-judged series of disclosure that they are now seeking to justify.
Dear America: Please don't drag us into your infighting like this again. Love, Britain.
Beyond this, though, I find it extremely disappointing that the paper is throwing out lots of abrasive partial justifications, a la Trump. The Morning briefing says "Leaks are far more common in Washington...because of a stronger tradition of a free press". This article seeks to cast doubt on the exact source - intimating that it may have been British. The executive editor says that "it did not violate anyone's privacy", but the mayor of Manchester and the families of the victims disagree.
I have a huge amount of respect for the NYT, but I get the sense that the staff have worked themselves into a war mindset through their confrontations with the White House, and this has spilled over into an ill-judged series of disclosure that they are now seeking to justify.
Dear America: Please don't drag us into your infighting like this again. Love, Britain.
3
A public benefit in the details of their bombs? Please. The public is speaking very clearly, and seemingly unanimously, here, condemning your decision. But thank you for at least providing us the ability to comment.
Americans are deeply embarrassed by the daily actions of the Trump regime, yet we stand by the NYT as you reveal the painful truth. We do not stand behind you endangering the lives of our friends and allies in the UK. not to mention jeopardizing future intelligence sharing when we need it most.
Please don't make us have to apologize for the NYT. Do it yourselves.
Americans are deeply embarrassed by the daily actions of the Trump regime, yet we stand by the NYT as you reveal the painful truth. We do not stand behind you endangering the lives of our friends and allies in the UK. not to mention jeopardizing future intelligence sharing when we need it most.
Please don't make us have to apologize for the NYT. Do it yourselves.
3
Sometimes the value of releasing information from leaks is immediately clear. The allegations that Trump is attempting to obstruct justice for example, because he's a menace. That's clear.
But I'm not sure what I learned from the crime scene article that would have made it any less valuable 5 weeks from now. It seems to me that the Times could have erred on the side of caution and waited.
But I'm not sure what I learned from the crime scene article that would have made it any less valuable 5 weeks from now. It seems to me that the Times could have erred on the side of caution and waited.
3
Hang on....are you really, seriously, expecting us to believe that the NYT found "unconvincing" the argument by the UK police not to print the photographs? What part of "it will undermine a live investigation" did the NYT find "unconvincing"?
You made a mistake, NYT. All of us make mistakes, we won't hold it against you. But your ham-fisted attempts to justify your deed by moral posturing are seriously damaging to your reputation.
You made a mistake, NYT. All of us make mistakes, we won't hold it against you. But your ham-fisted attempts to justify your deed by moral posturing are seriously damaging to your reputation.
5
Professional bomb makers have signatures; the pictures shown would have revealed a signature of a specific bomb maker. He could then plan his escape. Fortunately the network was too large and too amateur to get away in time. Not that the NYT didn't try to aid and abet in its rush to compete with the National Enquirer. I still remember the saga of Valerie Plame and the probable capture, torture and murder of her sources. As I recall the information was released by Cheney and Scooter Libby and the Times.
OK we understand that there will always be a balance to be found when weighing the fundamental freedoms that we are protecting against the state powers necessary to protect them. Like many abstract concepts this idea loses its sense and clarity the closer you get to applying it to a personal and live issue. Forget the inevitable attempts by Trump and May to make capital from the leaks and ask yourself this: If you were the victim of a terrible crime and given privileged information by the Police in its aftermath and asked not to share it for 48 hours in case it jeopardised the investigation, what would you do?
2
How can you support the Times' decision to publish without knowing whether it bothered to contact British authorities to give them the opportunity to comment or express a view on whether it might be damaging to publish?
Your position amounts to 'They won't tell me what they did so I'll assume they're right'. We need more independence from you than that.
This isn't just about the photos or the pattern of fatalities - The Times also named the bomber before he had been named in the UK, raising concerns about whether his associates might be tipped off.
You should look at this again, and The Times needs to extend both you and its readers - particularly those of us living in the UK - the courtesy of a proper explanation.
Your position amounts to 'They won't tell me what they did so I'll assume they're right'. We need more independence from you than that.
This isn't just about the photos or the pattern of fatalities - The Times also named the bomber before he had been named in the UK, raising concerns about whether his associates might be tipped off.
You should look at this again, and The Times needs to extend both you and its readers - particularly those of us living in the UK - the courtesy of a proper explanation.
2
Times Senior Editor must be related to Sean Spicer, dubious arguments intended push a ridiculous, infantile position.
The public doesn't need to know the color of the back-pack used, especially if the British Authorities asked for secrecy.
The NYT is a news-paper, not a religion, nor a school, nor our entertainment center.
Try to get back on track.
Thank you
The public doesn't need to know the color of the back-pack used, especially if the British Authorities asked for secrecy.
The NYT is a news-paper, not a religion, nor a school, nor our entertainment center.
Try to get back on track.
Thank you
5
This is very wet. The NY Times should be ashamed. There were multiple leaks of operational intelligence shared with the specific contractural agreement that these data were sensitive. It is no good pleading your virtue informing the public. You simply put your scoop out there and never thought for a second about the consequences. The visceral reaction of many readers, who point their fingers of blame with no information whatsoever, is also telling. This behaviour by the NY Times is extremely disappointing.
4
No editors available to discuss? The Times is all for transparency, except into its own decision making process, or in this case more probably lack of it.
5
Liz Spayd (as others have posted to this thread) seems to be completely out of the loop and has no idea whether it was wise or not to disclose the photographs of the bomb makings or whether or not the Manchester police investigation has been jeopardised by the NYT disclosures. It is risible, furthermore, that in defending the Times' publication, the public editor informs us that other newspapers in Britain published the same material afterwards. It doesn't take two seconds to react and conclude that is a totally specious argument. Obviously, after the horse has bolted, there is no point in pretending that it is still locked in the stable. As Professor Scott Lucas suggested on BBC Radio 4 this morning UK time, Manchester police regarded their procedures as part of a criminal investigation, whereas US officials are happy for PR purposes to publicise any rationale for the continuation of the war on terror. It is highly dubious to suggest the leak to the New York Times has anything to do with 'freedom of the press'. In this case, the freedom to be useful patsies in a broader agenda springs more readily to mind than anything as noble as press freedom. There is no actual evidence here that the need perceived by Manchester police to pursue in secrecy the parameters of their investigation was taken seriously. Let's have some transparency and see the NYT arguments for spilling the beans. Why not leak that editorial discussion and satisfy in full the public's right to know?
5
The Times explanation regarding the publication of bomb component photos so soon after the tragedy is unconvincing. Just as Western intelligence agencies can divine facts (or indications) from such components about the construction and origin of the explosive device -- and perhaps even pointers as to the maker -- so, presumably, could terrorists learn how to better avoid leaving such tell-tale clues in the aftermath of next time.
The surviving components might have even suggested an investigative trail to pursue -- partially foiled by The Times?
The public "need to know" these arcane details simply flunks the cost/benefit test in light of the above considerations.
The Times defense was lame, for these and other reasons expressed by most comment contributors.
Speaking of which, what percent of expressed reader feedback supported The Times' decision here? Very few. Your readers are generally pretty smart; as others have observed, the seemingly overwhelming negative reaction to The NYT tabloid-like photo display should tell you something.
The surviving components might have even suggested an investigative trail to pursue -- partially foiled by The Times?
The public "need to know" these arcane details simply flunks the cost/benefit test in light of the above considerations.
The Times defense was lame, for these and other reasons expressed by most comment contributors.
Speaking of which, what percent of expressed reader feedback supported The Times' decision here? Very few. Your readers are generally pretty smart; as others have observed, the seemingly overwhelming negative reaction to The NYT tabloid-like photo display should tell you something.
3
The writer says" I start from the position that a publication’s job is to inform the public .."
Perhaps - in due course. There is some value in knowing the techniques employed be these evil perpetrators. However, the timing is inappropriate and there is no value in reading about it even as the investigations are going on . Shame on you editors
Perhaps - in due course. There is some value in knowing the techniques employed be these evil perpetrators. However, the timing is inappropriate and there is no value in reading about it even as the investigations are going on . Shame on you editors
2
So this is the NYTimes' "independent" editor, who happens to be paid by the NYTimes! The NYTimes was wrong and now is trying to cover up their terrible mistake, making them look worse.
2
Dress it up all you like. The bottom line is that you published pictures of the blood of dead children before all of the victims had been identified. The only people who needed to see this information are security services of all nationalities. They already had it. Doesn't matter who leaked it, you published it. Take ownership of your actions. Imagine how New Yorkers would feel if the Manchester Evening News had done something similar after 911. Words are failing me. I cannot express the sense of outrage and disgust I felt when I heard what your publication had done. There is a small word we use in Manchester for people who behave in ways that are beyond description - Scum. This is Scum behaviour. Your only redemption is to apologise publicly. But you won't. You'll be too busy looking for the next scoop to sell your scummy publication.
2
Grow up NYT and issue an apology to the suffering families and the Manchester police. There is no excuse for publishing such sensitive information and your emphasis on public interest remains unconvincing. I'm an American who lives 60 miles from Manchester and feel outraged by the harm your reporting has done to the investigation of terrorist networks in the U.K. Get over yourself & issue the necessary apology.
2
The question is not whether to publish the photographs, but when. There was no compelling journalistic or public interest in rushing these images to press. The public editor's position comments on justification, but makes no defense of the timing.
3
I find the argument in favor of publication to be pathetic. The Times cannot justify the pictures or the macabre description of the body parts as anything but a need to sell papers. I've been a long time subscriber. But I'm rethinking my support for the Times.
3
I'm still waiting for the Times to publish those Mohammad cartoons.
3
What's more worrying than the shoddy behaviour of the NYT is the fact that a fundamental agreement of the Five Eyes Alliance has been broken by someone working for US Intelligence. The other Five Eyes Countries will inevitably be reluctant to share sensitive information with the US in future, now that the trust has been lost.
2
Shame on NYT and more shame on the Public editor who thinks its in the public interest to publicize details of the bombs in the midst of an investigation to stop further bombings. It is lame to say that although there may be no "vital need to see these photos" but "neither do they need to see plenty of other stories and photographs". Those "plenty of other stories" do not jeopardize ongoing investigations. NYT was both reckless and self-serving, and seems unable to admit it. Remind you of someone?
4
Have a bit respect man why would the victims families want to see the pictures you printed? Your heartless even trying to defend yourself disgrace am just glad our press aren't so disgusting.
2
Ms Spayd writes that "perhaps'" the NYT spoke to U.K. police before printing the information in question. But she is the Public Editor, for Pete's sake. Isn't it her job to find out if such a conversation took place, and to tell us? Her article is as unpersuasive as Mr Baquet's statement, I am afraid. And Mr Baquet should resign to demonstrate that he understands the seriousness of his failure of judgement.
4
The President shares classified information with Russia that may save lives - BAD!
NYT shares details and information about a sensitive investigation- GOOD!
FBI pressures Apple to unlock a terrorist's cell phone - BAD!
NYT shows bomb maker used forethought and care - GOOD!
Have we forgotten that assassins/terrorists have posed as camera men and reporters to easily reach their intended targets? No one is given greater access than credentialed media - at council meetings, presidential briefings, sporting events, concerts, etc. One can begin to see why Trump envies state controlled media in nations like N. Korea, Russia and China. We deserve better, but is this it?????
NYT shares details and information about a sensitive investigation- GOOD!
FBI pressures Apple to unlock a terrorist's cell phone - BAD!
NYT shows bomb maker used forethought and care - GOOD!
Have we forgotten that assassins/terrorists have posed as camera men and reporters to easily reach their intended targets? No one is given greater access than credentialed media - at council meetings, presidential briefings, sporting events, concerts, etc. One can begin to see why Trump envies state controlled media in nations like N. Korea, Russia and China. We deserve better, but is this it?????
1
The arrogance is breathtaking. Nobody elected you, or even appointed you protectors of the public interest. Continue to abuse the First Amendment and it will be sacrificed.
2
The reporting didn't add much, correction, really added nothing of stellar interest.
Some of my family live in Manchester so I don't need instructions on empathy or feel a need to elaborate on the distress caused by this act of barbarity.
But, but, but, just one major broadcaster, CBS, reported ever so briefly tonight that at least 105 civilians were killed in a botched US strike in Mosul to take out just 2 ISIL fighters. For sure, there were "beautiful children" killed. The last War on Gaza, at least 600 infants, children killed by Israeli fighter aircraft. The NYT Public Editor at the time didn't bother to examine how this was (not) reported.
Ms Spayd has so far displayed a particular concern for reporting only when it's "our neck of the woods". Gaza children, Mosul children - another planet, another time zone, apply different human values.
Some of my family live in Manchester so I don't need instructions on empathy or feel a need to elaborate on the distress caused by this act of barbarity.
But, but, but, just one major broadcaster, CBS, reported ever so briefly tonight that at least 105 civilians were killed in a botched US strike in Mosul to take out just 2 ISIL fighters. For sure, there were "beautiful children" killed. The last War on Gaza, at least 600 infants, children killed by Israeli fighter aircraft. The NYT Public Editor at the time didn't bother to examine how this was (not) reported.
Ms Spayd has so far displayed a particular concern for reporting only when it's "our neck of the woods". Gaza children, Mosul children - another planet, another time zone, apply different human values.
2
The decision to publish was yours---right or wrong to one side the Constitution provides you cover. What is patently wrong is that some sworn official broke protocol in a mass murder case. If DOJ wanted you to have the information
It would have been provided---after vetting. The source in this case should be found and prosecuted. There is just no excuse.
It would have been provided---after vetting. The source in this case should be found and prosecuted. There is just no excuse.
2
People are mixing up their own feelings about the tragic bombing with their feelings about the leaked photos. It is not because the photos were leaked that people are upset; It is because the bombing was upsetting. The photos I saw were not particularly gruesome nor sensational. In fact, I thought they were kind of boring. I'm sure there are many other much more gruesome photos from this tragedy that will not be appearing in the Times, even if they are leaked.
It is debateable whether these photos did much to enlighten the public. It is equally debateable whether the release of these photos really could jeopardize any investigation or prosecution.
It is debateable whether these photos did much to enlighten the public. It is equally debateable whether the release of these photos really could jeopardize any investigation or prosecution.
1
You start from the assumption that you are right, and contemplate whether you might have been at fault. Did you try reversing the logic?
Self-serving article.
Disappointed subscriber
Self-serving article.
Disappointed subscriber
3
Sorry, but No - the Public Editor has got it wrong. This was a failure of judgement, and she has compounded it. The NYT, a paper I respected, has made itself look grubby. The readers can see this - why can't the Public Editor?
4
This too shall pass.
1
As an avid reader of the NYT and the news in general, I found the decision to publish those photos when they did, and almost seemingly as click-bait, as a poor decision by a paper that I normally admire. This is one of a few times that I have been disappointed by the decision to publish an article so rapidly. Yes, the UK government may have made a poor case for why the photos should not be shared, but what harm could have come from waiting for another 12-24 hours to publish the images?
4
Hogwash. Clearly the photos originated with British law enforcement. I saw no effort in the reporting to get their response or expert opinion on the value of the evidence. Were they contacted by the Times prior to publication? And in any case, there was clearly no need to go to press so quickly. I see little evidence of due diligence on the part of the Times. I am yet another disappointed paying subscriber.
6
A few years ago, while out on a summer's walk along a canal towpath, a came across a thick sheaf of papers in a plastic carrier bag that had been dumped under a bush. They turned out to be the previous day's patients' notes from an acute ward at a local hospital. They had clearly been stolen and ditched. They contained the full details of everyone (about 30 patients) on that ward - names, addresses, phone numbers, relatives' details, highly sensitive medical data, etc, etc, etc. The patients were from all over the UK, not just local people.
I had a discussion with myself (but I won't reveal the contents of that discussion) and concluded that I would hand those notes back to the medical authorities. I suppose if I had the "right" contacts I could have made a nice profit by passing on the information I was in possession of to career burglars, insurance scammers, etc, but I concluded that the public interest would be best served by that material remaining classified.
All of the above is true except for one detail. I did NOT have that conversation with myself. I didn't need to.
I had a discussion with myself (but I won't reveal the contents of that discussion) and concluded that I would hand those notes back to the medical authorities. I suppose if I had the "right" contacts I could have made a nice profit by passing on the information I was in possession of to career burglars, insurance scammers, etc, but I concluded that the public interest would be best served by that material remaining classified.
All of the above is true except for one detail. I did NOT have that conversation with myself. I didn't need to.
2
I was angry when the NYT published, but waited for a response. I am more angry now. It seems a great many of us object to compromising a live investigation, particularly while other attackers are believed to be operating. The Times cannot outsource all responsibility onto the government leak as if morality were contractual. If this is sincerely editorial policy then expect cancellations.
3
The NY Times judges itself and finds itself innocent; what a shock!
4
The Times' excuse that "the public has a right to know" doesn't address the concern that there was no urgency in presenting this material. The apparent actual motivation in rushing to print was nothing more than tabloid journalism, click bait.
7
Another nail in the Journalism's coffin. Journalism has been replaced by sensationalism, opinions and soap opera gossip from "unknown" sources... Going back to the era of W. R. Hearst.
2
My comment on the original story got squelched, so here goes again from what I can recall. The NYT was a willing accessory to be first leaker so the U.K. could happily follow suit without fear of the unpatriotic charge.
This close working with the liberal UK media is something we've seen quite a bit of since H1B ex BBC British national Mark Thompson took the NYT CEO job in 2012. In particular, a steady stream of reports and high-brow op-eds last year bemoaning Brexit, which turned out to be yet another failed attempt to influence voters, in this instance voters across the Atlantic.
It's called a special relationship, this back-scratching. Ditto when Mrs. May threw hissy fit about leaks to Trump, a clever but indisputably great way to get a meeting with Trump, any meeting with Trump, off to a rocking good start.
So the real problem isn't what The Times leaked, but its ongoing, eager willingness to be used by the UK media at the expense of its local credibility. Baquet won't agree. He reports to Mark, you see. Ho hum. Wait, maybe not. Folks at Fox are ROFL.
This close working with the liberal UK media is something we've seen quite a bit of since H1B ex BBC British national Mark Thompson took the NYT CEO job in 2012. In particular, a steady stream of reports and high-brow op-eds last year bemoaning Brexit, which turned out to be yet another failed attempt to influence voters, in this instance voters across the Atlantic.
It's called a special relationship, this back-scratching. Ditto when Mrs. May threw hissy fit about leaks to Trump, a clever but indisputably great way to get a meeting with Trump, any meeting with Trump, off to a rocking good start.
So the real problem isn't what The Times leaked, but its ongoing, eager willingness to be used by the UK media at the expense of its local credibility. Baquet won't agree. He reports to Mark, you see. Ho hum. Wait, maybe not. Folks at Fox are ROFL.
1
Totally arrogant how you subverted the hunt for the bomber. Ranks with the US funding of IRA bombings against civilians in England. Please end my subscription which I will devote to the victims of this callous act.
1
Like Trump, despite huge public outcry, I do not expect the Times ever to apologize for what is now a clear editorial decision to publish those photos.
Like Trump, Times editors ego is in charge...
Like Trump, Times editors ego is in charge...
The photos were compelling, the debris remaining after a powerful bomb literally blew the torso away from the arms and legs of the bomber, curiously more identifiable than I would have thought. The explanation of how the police were able to surmise the bomb was in a back pack, not hidden under clothing in a vest, based on the ending location of the torso, and the pattern of the bodies in a blast radius, the mundane pictures of a charred but clearly brand named backpack, something a child might have worn, and a bloody device of some kind, possibly held in the hand of the bomber in his final seconds? illuminating. I felt like I had witnessed the scene in person. It became real in my mind, and suddenly I began to weep in a way none of the other attacks had affected me. I fervently hope the exposure of these images does not hinder the investigation, or allow guilty collaborators escape justice, but in my case at least, viewing them has amplified my understanding of the horror and the resolve our police must experience while they do their terrible duty. God speed to them all, and God bless the victims and their families.
It is not clear to me how waiting for the immediate shock to pass would have violated the public's right to know.
3
I love all the people opining here and in the political world while beating up on a newspaper when the real problem can be found in an article just below this one.
"As early as 2011, Salman Abedi, the 22-year-old Briton identified as the bomber, had raised such serious concerns among acquaintances that they called an antiterrorism hotline to report that he held extremist views.
The government has said that MI5, the domestic intelligence agency, was aware of Mr. Abedi — but only as a peripheral figure, and not someone whose behavior would have warranted immediate action."
How about we stop shifting the conversation and discuss the faulty logic and intel of the so called brilliant MI5?
"As early as 2011, Salman Abedi, the 22-year-old Briton identified as the bomber, had raised such serious concerns among acquaintances that they called an antiterrorism hotline to report that he held extremist views.
The government has said that MI5, the domestic intelligence agency, was aware of Mr. Abedi — but only as a peripheral figure, and not someone whose behavior would have warranted immediate action."
How about we stop shifting the conversation and discuss the faulty logic and intel of the so called brilliant MI5?
4
Lame excuse. Admit that it was wrong to do so. You would expect nothing less from any of the public figures you cover on a daily basis. Hypocrisy.
4
One cannot be harmed by anything one does not say. This aphorism has much merit socially and publicly. The desire for information is just that and not a need or requirement. "Loose lips sink ships", a WW2 warning is very apropos here.
2
I am at a loss for words. The sacred institution that is the NYT' s, gave Trump the only possible way out. Now he will demonize the only newspaper worth reading possibly beyond repair. You have lost credibility.
We had him.. Now,his fanatics that follow him so blindly, will never believe the evidence that is about to be found, no matter what it is.
Let us now speak of manners. We are taught early on to pick our battles. If the photos in question, represented anything important, something being covered up etc..I would partly understand. If the UK asked for nothing to be released and you did it anyway, that is just rude. I would be angry also, anyone would.
And for what? How did that help me, as a loyal reader? Do I care to see momentos of such a heinous crime? Not in the least.
The timing for this mistake, is so bad, that I have at least 5 percent suspicion that this was a plan, one that went perfectly for Trump.
You, the New York Times, are my champion.
You fight battles that I cannot. You wage war for me against icons and institutions that I fear.
I put my trust in you a long time ago!
There aren't very many more champions for the people that are left. We need the press!
Please realize what is at stake here.
Pick your battles.
We had him.. Now,his fanatics that follow him so blindly, will never believe the evidence that is about to be found, no matter what it is.
Let us now speak of manners. We are taught early on to pick our battles. If the photos in question, represented anything important, something being covered up etc..I would partly understand. If the UK asked for nothing to be released and you did it anyway, that is just rude. I would be angry also, anyone would.
And for what? How did that help me, as a loyal reader? Do I care to see momentos of such a heinous crime? Not in the least.
The timing for this mistake, is so bad, that I have at least 5 percent suspicion that this was a plan, one that went perfectly for Trump.
You, the New York Times, are my champion.
You fight battles that I cannot. You wage war for me against icons and institutions that I fear.
I put my trust in you a long time ago!
There aren't very many more champions for the people that are left. We need the press!
Please realize what is at stake here.
Pick your battles.
2
"Typically in cases like this, there is an internal discussion among top editors in the newsroom where questions are raised of just the type that readers are now voicing. Most likely that happened in this case as well, although editors have declined to discuss such conversations."
I am completely uninterested in boilerplate recitations of the "typical." I am interested in what happened HERE. It is a black mark against Times editors that they wouldn't discuss what happened here with Spayd, already with a well established track record of reflexive defense of Times editorial decision making.
But of all the indignant critics, somebody needs to explain to me HOW these pictures might help the "terrorists evade capture." That logic I just can't follow.
I am completely uninterested in boilerplate recitations of the "typical." I am interested in what happened HERE. It is a black mark against Times editors that they wouldn't discuss what happened here with Spayd, already with a well established track record of reflexive defense of Times editorial decision making.
But of all the indignant critics, somebody needs to explain to me HOW these pictures might help the "terrorists evade capture." That logic I just can't follow.
7
This phrase could be improved: "in eerie detail."
The attack was eerie -- unnatural, and strange to the point of upsetting -- but the details merely flesh out that larger impression. The details are not themselves eerie.
The sentence reads the same, if not better, without "eerie."
The attack was eerie -- unnatural, and strange to the point of upsetting -- but the details merely flesh out that larger impression. The details are not themselves eerie.
The sentence reads the same, if not better, without "eerie."
The decision to publish the Manchester photos and information may have been entirely appropriate. There is not enough information to judge. The photos of forensic debris seem unlikely to have impeded any police work.
-- This Public Editor column, however, seems weak on information and feeble in moral assessment. The NYTimes may be unfairly accused by understandably stressed British Police. I would like to think so. But this column needs to be followed with a more complete evaluation when that can be done.
-- This Public Editor column, however, seems weak on information and feeble in moral assessment. The NYTimes may be unfairly accused by understandably stressed British Police. I would like to think so. But this column needs to be followed with a more complete evaluation when that can be done.
12
Big fan of NYT, but not this time. Cmon guys you know better.
13
It was unnecessary to publish the photographs, but what is alarming is the leaking of them by US security agaents. The 5 eyes security network consisting of the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand share information on the basis that it will remain confidential unless the source determines otherwise. It really throws into doubt the competence of US security if photographs can be leaked to the press. The NY Times cannot justify the publication of the images knowingly obtained without approval and so soon after the attack in Manchester. Five Eyes more like Five Million Eyes.
5
The story brought home an extremely important reality. The bomb was sophisticated and thought out, which raises all sorts of questions ordinary people have a right to ask. For example: is terrorism from the Mideast growing stronger? I thought the story was genuine news, except of course to the perpetrators. Bravo NYT.
5
The credibility of the Public Editors analysis and conclusion is approximately Zero "0" ( decimal rounded to the nearest integer)
8
I was terribly disappointed at the publishing of these photos. I am a digital subscriber and an avid reader for many years. I depend on the NYT for news coverage that takes the high road. There was no public benefit and possibly harm from publishing these pictures. The Times should apologize.
12
I am disgusted by the argument that the public's right to know is so important that the Times will unearth and disclose information that may hinder an investigation or, worse, make it easier for similar attacks to occur. If the Times had known about the raid on Abbottabad before it happened, would we have read about that too? Would bin Laden still be alive? I believe in a free press, but I also believe that with freedom comes responsibility, and the Times has shown itself thoroughly irresponsible from the run-up to the invasion of Iraq on. I don't believe anyone there spends a minute weighing the public's right to know against the possible harm a story may do. I am disgusted.
14
"So should The Times have published? It’s hard to say conclusively without knowing whether British officials made a specific case for how this would endanger their investigation. "
Well, did anyone at the Times ask? Or, was the material so hot, that asking might have triggered a negative response?
The public does have a right to know, but were the photos meaningful enough to the public to outweigh progress in the investigation? I'm a curious engineer, but I have to say I'd rather see the terrorist network come down, first.
Well, did anyone at the Times ask? Or, was the material so hot, that asking might have triggered a negative response?
The public does have a right to know, but were the photos meaningful enough to the public to outweigh progress in the investigation? I'm a curious engineer, but I have to say I'd rather see the terrorist network come down, first.
8
No public benefit whatsoever in publishing immediately, as opposed to (say) several weeks hence. Possible alerts to terrorist networks, or their abettors, operating "underground" in information silos, each part not necessarily knowing to what purpose its own contribution would be put, and where, and when. Likely harm to relations with British and other allies, already in jeopardy over Trump's bragging confidential information to Russians. Presently unknowable benefit sought by leakers, whose motives are unknown to us readers. Does the NYTimes have ideas what their motives might have been? If so, you did not share them with us. Clear benefit to NYTimes, generating traffic, scooping other news organizations. You made the wrong decision, NYTimes.
9
Great respect for the NYT and Mr Chivers specifically (amazing reporting over the years), but in this case I have no idea what either of you were thinking.
Two separate issues:
1. The track record of the relatively new public editor is not encouraging - in this case we have a very superficial treatment of a disturbing issue. The NYT, just like any organization, needs a strong voice to counteract groupthink. The public editor is not providing this.
2. Mr Baquet's suggestion that we need articles like this to understand how terrorists work is laughable - by now I think we all understand the playbook pretty clearly. How is potentially compromising an allies' investigation into the murder of children remotely worth it?
Two separate issues:
1. The track record of the relatively new public editor is not encouraging - in this case we have a very superficial treatment of a disturbing issue. The NYT, just like any organization, needs a strong voice to counteract groupthink. The public editor is not providing this.
2. Mr Baquet's suggestion that we need articles like this to understand how terrorists work is laughable - by now I think we all understand the playbook pretty clearly. How is potentially compromising an allies' investigation into the murder of children remotely worth it?
9
I find it embarrassing this article must admit that the editors will not comment on their discussions or the decisions to publish such information. While newspapers are not the government and therefore should not be held to the same standards or openness and transparency, I find it highly ironic that a newspaper who often uses the right for the public to know the truth as a reason to publish stories like this is now hiding behind similar excuses government officials use to hide information from the public.
12
No, the "story" wasn't "compelling." I had no need let alone a desire to know these utterly mundane details about physical evidence. NYTimes stick to "all the news that is fit to print," skip the non-stories and let the police do their work.
8
I worked as a journalist in TV and newspapers for 20 years and I am a subscriber. But not for much longer. This is a mealy-mouthed response that fails to address the central question: can a scoop justify an action that might conceivably help perpetrators of a foul act evade capture? The answer has to be no.
There is no public interest defence here. Perhaps in a week but not so soon, with arrests and raids ongoing. This shows contempt for investigators, and for British readers concerned that those behind this atrocity should be caught before they have a chance to do more damage.
I've never commented on an article in any publication before, as I know news is an inexact science. But this was wrong. Owning up to it would have stopped me cancelling my subscription. You do not deserve support.
There is no public interest defence here. Perhaps in a week but not so soon, with arrests and raids ongoing. This shows contempt for investigators, and for British readers concerned that those behind this atrocity should be caught before they have a chance to do more damage.
I've never commented on an article in any publication before, as I know news is an inexact science. But this was wrong. Owning up to it would have stopped me cancelling my subscription. You do not deserve support.
10
The idea that you told the public how terrorists work in a materially helpful way seems dubious to me.
6
Bad judgement and the original publication had the burnish of being sensational. Nor do I appreciate this rather self serving defence.
7
I figured you'd get the vitriolic responses I'm reading here but I don't object to the decision to publish at all. The tragedy and horror of the attack is unimaginable, but the question that had to be asked and answered as soon as possible remained: was the attacker a lone wolf or part of a terror network? Could more attacks happen quickly? Doesn't the British public have a right to know that right away? The answers to those questions outweigh the high-minded moral outrage that is so apparent. And it should be noted that the UK is notoriously tight-lipped about any criminal and court proceedings to a degree that would not pass muster in the U.S. Britain needs to explain exactly how publishing these photos damaged the investigation, but that won't happen. The leaks themselves are a larger, and separate issue.
4
But why did you say 'No comment' when the BBC rang for a comment? An incredible reaction from a newspaper
9
I have just read your most recent article attempting to justify the publication of photographs related to the bomb scene in Manchester. In your effortt to defend your decision you leveraged your desire to inform the public with respect to how terrorists develop bombs such as these.
You could have accomplished this goal without the publication of photographs. One of the photographs was simply the close up of a label of the backpacks manufacturer. How did this contribute to education of the public? Another photograph showed the scene with a blood smear on the pavement. Again how did publication of this photo serve the public interest?
The more informative aspect of the article was the detailed description of the design and composition of the bomb and the explosion pattern that was suggestive of a backpack vs a vest oriented device. The publication of the photographs veers toward sensationalism in order to draw readers not interested in words but images to an article they never intended to read.
The coverage of the New York Times in regard to this event has been questionable in other articles as well where the fact that the bomber read the Quran was cited as if it were a pertinent piece of information. While radicalized, he was a Muslim and don't all practitioners of that faith read the Quran? It begs the question why it was necessary to state that as if it were a revelation outside of two independent paragraphs as a single sentence.
You could have accomplished this goal without the publication of photographs. One of the photographs was simply the close up of a label of the backpacks manufacturer. How did this contribute to education of the public? Another photograph showed the scene with a blood smear on the pavement. Again how did publication of this photo serve the public interest?
The more informative aspect of the article was the detailed description of the design and composition of the bomb and the explosion pattern that was suggestive of a backpack vs a vest oriented device. The publication of the photographs veers toward sensationalism in order to draw readers not interested in words but images to an article they never intended to read.
The coverage of the New York Times in regard to this event has been questionable in other articles as well where the fact that the bomber read the Quran was cited as if it were a pertinent piece of information. While radicalized, he was a Muslim and don't all practitioners of that faith read the Quran? It begs the question why it was necessary to state that as if it were a revelation outside of two independent paragraphs as a single sentence.
4
I'm usually supportive of the Times's decisions to publish restricted information, but not this time. The British government is well within its rights to control information concerning an investigation as important as this one, and there was little value to not waiting a day or two to publish, especially the name of the suspect. It was insensitive and unnecessarily intrusive. And why did the Times wait so long to explain its decision, when publication had become a news story of its own?
7
I don't see what the problem is, except that the outrage seems manufactured. How in the world would a picture of what was left of the bomb-carrying backpack be of any use to other terrorists. I knew the core of the outrage was artifical when I read of how the N.Y.Times photo increased the grief of the families of those slain. Really? I am sorry, but this reeks of confabulation. I am wary, now, of May and the conservatives in the U.K. From the look of the comments our own domestic right wingers are fomenting another illusory injustice to pillage that portion of the press they disagree with.
3
I thought the justification the NYT gave for releasing the name and scene photos was pathetic. While it is in the interest of the public to know how terrorists operate, this does not justify publishing evidence while the investigation is ongoing. I do not see why the public needs to know evidence the British police have immediately today in order to understand how terrorists work. What public harm is there in waiting until the police release information?
7
So how did these photos impede the investigation? There was nothing unexpected here. The outrage at the NYT publishing these generic crime scene photos seems a bit contrived. I think the real message was to the worlds "secret keepers". If you share sensitive information with the Trump administration, it will be leaked to the press. Either by the tweeter in chief or by government staff appalled by him.
2
The information was passed on the basis that it would remain confidential. It's leaking was a breach of trust. Get it?
That is exactly my point.
The Trump administration or others within the US intelligence communty who "support" the administration?
I am a forensic photographer for a large agency in Los Angeles and a 30-year subscriber to the New York Times. I am deeply disappointed that the NY Times published these images and I feel strongly that the explanations of Ms.Spayd and Mr. Banquet are inadequate and misguide readers. Both editors fail to fully acknowledge that the photographs represent visual legal evidence that they were not authorized to posses, nor were they, their editors or Mr. Chivers qualified or informed to decide the publication of the images would do no harm. Mr. Banquet is flat wrong and guilty of journalistic arrogance to dismiss the images as not being sensitive-images from any murder case are sensitive until the lead investigating agency releases them or they become public record. Prior to publication, did the editors contact the British authorities and allow them to "make their case"? Why were the editors and Mr. Chivers unable or unwillingly to use their journalistic skills as writers to compromise and describe to readers the evidence in the photographs? Did the big score of an instant visual scoop in a demanding digital world corrupt their ethics? I think so. Many law enforcement agencies go to great lengths to respect and support the work of professional journalists. Why would the NY Times not extend the same respect to the work of professional investigators? Listen to your informed, intelligent and loyal readers-you were wrong to print these images.
12
My first post to you after years of NYT subscrptions; take that as an indication how serious a mistake this choice was. when there is disarray in a branch of government (calling the Trump WH in "disarray" is clear understatement), careful observers of it like the NYT need to up their game and be the adult in the room. grim photos like those can handle a 24-48h delay to this reader. add me to the "mix of fury and disappointment at The Times’s decision" category.
6
The author makes the self righteous case of the NYT to publish investigation evidence of a terrorist incident that did not happen on US territory but in Manchester England. Citing the well worn justification of the great American Fourth Estate that the people have a right to know demonstrates an arrogance that reminds one of the book entitled The Ugly American. The people, that is, the citizens of the UK who are most affected by the terror attack and the NYT's decision to release classified investigative information are reported to be not too pleased, enraged actually, with the NYT and the people who leaked that information to them.
The author, and the editorial deciders of the NYT are invited to read this article, published in 2008.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-pub...
The author, and the editorial deciders of the NYT are invited to read this article, published in 2008.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-pub...
2
Liz, you say that "typically in cases like this, there is an internal discussion among top editors," and that it most likely happened here but the editors declined to comment, so you don't really know. You also say it's not clear if government officials had any discussions with the Times about not publishing. So in effect, you don't really know any more than the reader. So it still begs the question - why run with sensitive info and photos when such a major investigation is still in its early stages? What benefit is there to the public to know any of this when law enforcement is working to track down mad killers who may very well strike again? And finally, why won't the editors be more forthcoming to you? As you can see, there are still a lot of questions.
3
Humbug - pure drivel generated to berate the Times for anything so as to diminish its reporting of the emerging scandals at the White House.
Pre-emptive obfuscation. Ignore the noise makers.
Pre-emptive obfuscation. Ignore the noise makers.
2
What a weak and specious argument. Any information the public has a right to know could have waited a few days. The only people who need to know right now are the perps and the cops.
4
I am pleased that The Times errs on the side transparency in all topics. Keep up the good work.
1
I'm taken aback by these comments. I didn't think these photos or stories were any different from the ones published after the Boston Marathon bombing or other violent acts. If news organisations had been specifically asked not to publish these photos, I can see why the British government would be upset but I didn't get the impression that was the case. They weren't marked "classified." I don't see how the NYT reporting in this case was any different than other similar incidents.
1
It's fake outrage. Two days and all the sock puppets who said they were cancelling subscriptions they never had will be gone
When I read Mr. Baquet’s pompous explanation for running these pictures I slap my forehead. He would have readers believe there is a ‘public benefit’ in showing leaked crime scene photos of an active terrorist investigation. If the decision impairs the apprehension and prosecution of the criminals of what public benefit is that? How shameful.
5
Ms Spayd: Fatuous poppycock. There is no news value in the information published in this instance by the NYT, zero, none. Your arguments are no more considered or tenable than those generally proffered by that irresponsible leak-publisher Julian Assange. The NYT has now stooped to the very low level of expertise, judgement and discernment of Wikileaks.
4
Me, when in doubt, I trust the N.Y.Times. NYT is one of the few newspapers that I respect & trust. (bravo to the Times!)
2
"The judgment is that there is a public benefit to telling people how terrorists work, including the makeup of their bombs, the kinds of packs they carry."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? Dean Bacquet is a sorry excuse for editor in chief, and there IS NO PUBLIC BENEFIT of any kind whatsoever to knowing the makeup of terrorist bombs and the types of backpacks they carry (as if they carry a special kind).
It is heartening that there is a huge outcry over this stupid decision to publish the evidentiary materials that serve no larger interest than being prurient.
It is appalling that Liz Spayd is trying to be an apologist for an untenable decision made by Dean Bacquet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? Dean Bacquet is a sorry excuse for editor in chief, and there IS NO PUBLIC BENEFIT of any kind whatsoever to knowing the makeup of terrorist bombs and the types of backpacks they carry (as if they carry a special kind).
It is heartening that there is a huge outcry over this stupid decision to publish the evidentiary materials that serve no larger interest than being prurient.
It is appalling that Liz Spayd is trying to be an apologist for an untenable decision made by Dean Bacquet.
5
Nope. I don't agree with the conclusion that the Times should have published the photos.
The photos are not newsworthy and did not provide readers with any substantive understanding.
But the publication of the photos did allow Trump to add fuel to his fire about leaks.
Was there any consideration of the implications of publishing what are insignificant photos that help support White House attacks on leaks in general, leaks that unlike the photos have been truly substantive and truly important?
The photos are not newsworthy and did not provide readers with any substantive understanding.
But the publication of the photos did allow Trump to add fuel to his fire about leaks.
Was there any consideration of the implications of publishing what are insignificant photos that help support White House attacks on leaks in general, leaks that unlike the photos have been truly substantive and truly important?
5
Putting aside what you will argue as fair game, isn't this the kind of irresponsible journalism you derided Julian Assange on? You are a bunch of hypocrites to say the least!
3
Clearly important information to law enforcement and bombers; beyond that simply prurient. But all ethics are situational, and this editor seems to want to be able to still have lunch with colleagues. It is obscene if we leaked the content provided by U.K.; it is obscene NYTs published.
4
I am a paying subscriber to the NYT and I am appalled at the publication of information hours after the bombing.
You use the words "not taken lightly" but I don't believe you, because you missed entirely the one criteria that really matters.
That criteria is the matter of urgency. In what sense was it urgent that the matter be made public, or was in the public interest?
A week, a month, would make no difference to the ability of the public to pick up the threads.
Like many US companies you show little respect for the rights of those not of your ilk.
You use the words "not taken lightly" but I don't believe you, because you missed entirely the one criteria that really matters.
That criteria is the matter of urgency. In what sense was it urgent that the matter be made public, or was in the public interest?
A week, a month, would make no difference to the ability of the public to pick up the threads.
Like many US companies you show little respect for the rights of those not of your ilk.
1
I do not see how these items were newsworthy, just sensationalistic.
3
This is sanctimonious pap. You were not privy to editorial discussions, the editors refuse to tell you about its contents, they refuse to tell you the sources, they refuse to tell you whether they had any discussions with the British government, and yet you agree with their decision!
On what basis, ma'am?!
Essentially -- I hate to be blunt about this, but there's no other choice -- they treated you like a useful idiot, and brushed you off. Not dissimilar to how Trump treats his press team.
If you have any self-esteem, you'll walk out of there.
On what basis, ma'am?!
Essentially -- I hate to be blunt about this, but there's no other choice -- they treated you like a useful idiot, and brushed you off. Not dissimilar to how Trump treats his press team.
If you have any self-esteem, you'll walk out of there.
7
Dean Baquet published the leaked information because he wanted the NY Times to grab a "scoop," therefore making more money. The information was published to benefit the NY Times, and not the readers, the investigators, and certainly not the families and friends of those who lost loved ones.
This is another example of the editors making money at the expense of the public good, and it deserves condemnation.
This is another example of the editors making money at the expense of the public good, and it deserves condemnation.
5
Not a good response, sorry.
Yet today May, Johnson et al say all's well. There's more to this story and we know less than ever.
You handed Trump a weapon for no good reason.
Please keep us updated, now that this will be used as excuse against the press, IC, and of course anything he perceives against him.
Yet today May, Johnson et al say all's well. There's more to this story and we know less than ever.
You handed Trump a weapon for no good reason.
Please keep us updated, now that this will be used as excuse against the press, IC, and of course anything he perceives against him.
4
As much as I favour freedom of the press, there was a lot of unreleased info in that piece. I gather forensic teams can gather a lot from a bombmakers 'craft', not to mention where components are sourced from so perhaps it was a tad rash publishing those details. Posting the locations of the victims was much too soon after the event.
I followed the rolling news as the story broke on Monday night, and was surprised by other US media scoops (CBS, NBC) from 'US intelligence sources' who were talking suicide bombers and (so it turned out) accurate victim numbers before any of the outlets over here had gotten that far.
I think therein lies the reason for the angry HMG reaction - no sooner had the Home Secretary spoken on Tuesday of sending strong words across the Pond regarding these initial leaks, then NYT lands this story. You made the UK Govt look bad (not a difficult task) and they don't like being shown up, no matter how easy it is...
I followed the rolling news as the story broke on Monday night, and was surprised by other US media scoops (CBS, NBC) from 'US intelligence sources' who were talking suicide bombers and (so it turned out) accurate victim numbers before any of the outlets over here had gotten that far.
I think therein lies the reason for the angry HMG reaction - no sooner had the Home Secretary spoken on Tuesday of sending strong words across the Pond regarding these initial leaks, then NYT lands this story. You made the UK Govt look bad (not a difficult task) and they don't like being shown up, no matter how easy it is...
3
There was absolutely no reason to publish the article of the specifics of the bomb while the investigation was ongoing. If you felt that it was that important for the public to know, you could have waited until after the investigation was complete to publish it. The information it contained had no urgency whatsoever in terms of informing the public about "how terrorists work".
The only explanation for the timing was that you wanted a "scoop", at a time when our staunch ally Great Britain is under a maximum security alert, the search for the terror network is very much active, the surviving victims are still in the hospital receiving treatment for their wounds, and families of the deceased are dealing with their inconceivable grief.
This was a monumental blunder. Hard stop.
And this response is appalling.
I don't care how many thousands of new digital subscriptions you got after you blew the coverage of the Presidential election, Dean Baquet is destroying this newspaper. His editorial decisions are atrocious, and his "explanations" are consistently worse than the original offense.
And I had great respect for C.J. Chivers and the work he has done in the past, but he has suffered significant reputational damage with this incident.
The only explanation for the timing was that you wanted a "scoop", at a time when our staunch ally Great Britain is under a maximum security alert, the search for the terror network is very much active, the surviving victims are still in the hospital receiving treatment for their wounds, and families of the deceased are dealing with their inconceivable grief.
This was a monumental blunder. Hard stop.
And this response is appalling.
I don't care how many thousands of new digital subscriptions you got after you blew the coverage of the Presidential election, Dean Baquet is destroying this newspaper. His editorial decisions are atrocious, and his "explanations" are consistently worse than the original offense.
And I had great respect for C.J. Chivers and the work he has done in the past, but he has suffered significant reputational damage with this incident.
5
What is the big deal? This news became controversial only when the British Prime Minister complained about this issue to our liar-in-chief, with the certainty that trump would indeed try to extricate himself from the investigations swirling around him by ordering an "investigation of the leak." The New York Times is doing its job and those who seem offended could avert their eyes but should not try to censor the news.
1
So … where'd you get the photos?
1
I am concerned as other readers about the moral breakdown in the white house and congress. And I am guessing that whom ever ever leaked this info did so to further embarrass #45, by providing another example of how sensitive information isn't safe in his hands. But the nyt really dropped the ball in publishing. There is NO public interest in this story AT THIS TIME. I agree that it compromised an on going investigation. This was a very bad call.
3
So if I understand this piece correctly, the Times keeps a low level person purposely out of the loop, so they can make statements to the public without revealing any information?
Do the editors who made the decisions think they are responding to criticism by posting nonsense?
Do the editors who made the decisions think they are responding to criticism by posting nonsense?
3
Dear Sirs.
I am an admirerer and a subscriber of the NYT. I really appreciate the quality of your journalism, but being what you are you should have been aware that publishing, kind of flamboyantly, the name and the kit of the suicide bomber in Mmanchester, was totally irresponsible. Because although information to the public is important, you have to respect that in a terrorist investigation you are helping the terrorists if you disclose, through a leak, an information which the relevant authorities are investigating, and the same authorities are the only ones which should determine the timing of giving information to the public, in the interest of the investigation. British officials are making that fairly clear today.
In this case you, the NYT, really, went above board.
Do not repeat that mistake if you wish to keep your readers trust.
With kind regards.
Thorsteinn OLAFSSON
Iceland.
I am an admirerer and a subscriber of the NYT. I really appreciate the quality of your journalism, but being what you are you should have been aware that publishing, kind of flamboyantly, the name and the kit of the suicide bomber in Mmanchester, was totally irresponsible. Because although information to the public is important, you have to respect that in a terrorist investigation you are helping the terrorists if you disclose, through a leak, an information which the relevant authorities are investigating, and the same authorities are the only ones which should determine the timing of giving information to the public, in the interest of the investigation. British officials are making that fairly clear today.
In this case you, the NYT, really, went above board.
Do not repeat that mistake if you wish to keep your readers trust.
With kind regards.
Thorsteinn OLAFSSON
Iceland.
3
This episode confirms journalists make poor journalistic decisions, due to conflicts of interest. Journalists crave notoriety, and cravenly publish regardless of the effects on both the innocent and on the industrious. We recognize governments also make poor journalistic judgements, because they are equally conflicted. In theory, editors could have the perspective to make good judgments, but that too has been proven false. This the quandary - who is not so biased as to be disqualified?
2
I think this defense is nonsense. You can't just say "there is a public benefit" and not go on to state what the benefit is. Also, it's ridiculous to say the burden is on British investigators to explain why material shouldn't be published, when they're in the middle of an urgent investigation and they're saying another attack may be imminent. Why should they have to waste precious resources on explaining to you why material they didn't give you shouldn't be published? At the very least you could have delayed publishing this material.
5
I disagree with most of the comments here. The NYT was simply doing its job in publishing this information. It was not catering to prurient interests. Nobody is being forced to read articles on this tragedy. I have yet to read an explanation in the Guardian or Washington Post on how publishing this information is harming the ongoing investigation.
2
Gads, but you're worthless!
As the supposed insider, you're supposed to tell us what happened. Instead, you talk about what would "typically" happen, while giving Times editors a pass for "declining" to discuss what actually DID happen.
You don't even meet the journalistic standards of Kelly Anne Conway. Go work for big tobacco PR.
As the supposed insider, you're supposed to tell us what happened. Instead, you talk about what would "typically" happen, while giving Times editors a pass for "declining" to discuss what actually DID happen.
You don't even meet the journalistic standards of Kelly Anne Conway. Go work for big tobacco PR.
5
If there's fault here, it's with whoever gave the material to the Times. Presumably all of this evidence was to be confidential. Whoever gave it to the times broke the trust and deserves what they get. (presumably from US law enforcement or intelligence) Allied governments need to be able to trust each other. The media however, is obligated to present the news as it sees fit. Personally, I don't see the actual harm with this material being out there (although I admit I may be ignorant on this.). The harm is in broken trust.
My main issue is the timing....couldn't you have published the same article with the same information a few days later and still have done the job of informing the public while still giving time to the investigators? As is it seems like a hasty publishing decision when so many readers look to the Times for level headed and rational reporting, especially on a scary and sensational topic like this.
4
Gory photographs are the undeniable truth. I only wish the NYT had run equally horrendous photos of the aftermath of Sandy Hook. Maybe when people see for themselves the damage that guns do they will realise how completely wrong it is for any citizen to own a handgun or an assault rifle.
3
Or better yet, why didn't NYT publish a picture of the Charlie Hebdo Mohammed cartoons so that we could see how completely wrong it was to kill people over it -- or did something like that have no "journalistic value"?
Editorial chickens, methinks.
Editorial chickens, methinks.
1
It did not seem out of line with what I recall to be the reporting on the Boston Marathon bombing.
And in that investigation, since there were suspects at large, it turned out to be crucial to have the press and public engaged and helping.
And in that investigation, since there were suspects at large, it turned out to be crucial to have the press and public engaged and helping.
1
You don't address the proven harm done to future investigations as a result of Britain ending cooperation with U.S. intelligence because of publication of the leaked material. The Times has become so reliant on leaks in its pursuit of Trump that it, and perhaps the agencies themselves, have apparently ceased to weigh the public interest in preserving secrecy in areas unrelated to Trump and where secrecy is unquestionably required.
2
How self serving.
Anything for clicks.
Anything for clicks.
3
Baquet's comments are made in jest, right? I mean, seriously, there is absolutely zero journalistic value to those pictures. Is his point really that if I see a person with a detonator in their hand and some nut and bolts in their back pack, I should run? Uh, no kidding. The pictures belong in the NY Post, not the NY Times. Please, don't insult your readers with this nonsense. What's embarrassing is that Baquet is still around. That's the ultimate insult.
6
Why don't you apologize instead of trying to justify?
4
I agree with your decision to publish these photographs. They were interesting to me -- and I'm not a voyeur.
Governments seem to want, on the one hand, to control information, and on the other, to share it. Thank goodness that governments aren't monolithic for the most part -- otherwise we'd have more Stalins and Hitlers and Pinochets. There will be disagreements within governments on what's best to do; mistakes will be made; lessons learned. Governing isn't algebra -- there aren't single answers to all problems.
Governments seem to want, on the one hand, to control information, and on the other, to share it. Thank goodness that governments aren't monolithic for the most part -- otherwise we'd have more Stalins and Hitlers and Pinochets. There will be disagreements within governments on what's best to do; mistakes will be made; lessons learned. Governing isn't algebra -- there aren't single answers to all problems.
3
I agree with the decision of the Times' editor, Dean Baquet. We all need to be vigilant. This applies especially to those who live in cities where there is often backpacks and bags lying on the ground. We all need to be vigilant; we need to see how ordinary items can, in an explosion, cause death to innocent victims and horrible injuries to others.
1
Sure we should see how terrorists pull off such atrocities but we don't need to see the actual back pack and other specifics and other details which may alert those involved in the bombing as to exactly what was found and is known by police. Generic back packs and other details could have been provided in a way that protected the Exact evidence from being revealed.
This paper has no idea what they are doing, or the results of it. They insist that they are above the law because of some idiotic idea that they are an official part of the US government. Those that published this, accepted this, and did not report it to the authorities are not worthy of being citizens of the US. Perhaps jail will convince so called "journalist" that they are also citizens with responsibilities.
16
vulcanalex and I agree about almost nothing (I'm a moderate progressive). While I might hesitate about a jail sentence, the fact that I agree with him/her here should give the NYT serious pause about their sensationalism vs. sticking to informing the public about honest news.
2
I think they have an idea what they are doing. And I agree with your position. Very disappointing..and arrogant journalism..unwillingness to accept responsibility for their grave misstep on this one..
Nothing that the NY Times did is illegal, and therefore not acting above the law. The Supreme Court, time and time again, has held that publishing leaked documents of public interest is completely legal and a right under the First Amendment as long as the Times doesn't steal the info itself. In this case, a government official leaked the information. Therefore, the Time's release may have been irresponsible, but it was legal.
I love the NYTimes but I think you got this one wrong. This is was not more than an unacceptable way to get hits and show up in feeds everywhere. You wanted a big scoop and you got it but in return you also jeopardized an investigation. You have put at risk finding those behind the bomb and may have put future lives at risk. You did not do this in the public's interest to know. We didn't need to know what the screws and other debris from the bomb looked like.
Also, I'm disappointed that I hadn't seen anything on this leak until now. There was a brief paragraph, really just a couple of sentences buried in another story. Everyone else had a major story on this yesterday. If you were so confident you were right why not accompany the pictures with a detailed article on your process of how you came to the decision to publish.
I guess it goes to show even the NYTimes can fall to the 24 hour news cycle need to be bigger louder more graphic and insensitive. In covering Trump so much you're starting to become him.
Also, I'm disappointed that I hadn't seen anything on this leak until now. There was a brief paragraph, really just a couple of sentences buried in another story. Everyone else had a major story on this yesterday. If you were so confident you were right why not accompany the pictures with a detailed article on your process of how you came to the decision to publish.
I guess it goes to show even the NYTimes can fall to the 24 hour news cycle need to be bigger louder more graphic and insensitive. In covering Trump so much you're starting to become him.
83
That sums up my reaction: those pictures were out there to increase sales/online hits; not to present anything necessary to explain the story. This "leak" wasn't revealing any secrets that were important for the public to know, to understand some scandalous failings or correctable problems in governing; it was just flash.
24
Exactly dmv - the " story" cannot be put above all else !
The times is then no better than Assange and trump as you point out.
Actually they may be worse in that Assange provided plenty of info the public should know - this Not So Much.....
The times is then no better than Assange and trump as you point out.
Actually they may be worse in that Assange provided plenty of info the public should know - this Not So Much.....
This is not just a problem with the NYT.
Many days it is hard to find news anywhere, as the crisis du jour is pushed out by infotainment (and terrorism should not be treated as entertainment). But there is another effect, which all news should think about.
You are providing publicity for the killers, and for wannabe instant fame you are part of the problem. Were these killers and their enablers treated as the cowards they are, and ignored, they would be less effective.
Like Trump, who also has dominated the news so we can hardly remember when real news was more common, these blown up single-issue cross-media blitzes drown out so much else that is happening in the world that we should know about.
Many days it is hard to find news anywhere, as the crisis du jour is pushed out by infotainment (and terrorism should not be treated as entertainment). But there is another effect, which all news should think about.
You are providing publicity for the killers, and for wannabe instant fame you are part of the problem. Were these killers and their enablers treated as the cowards they are, and ignored, they would be less effective.
Like Trump, who also has dominated the news so we can hardly remember when real news was more common, these blown up single-issue cross-media blitzes drown out so much else that is happening in the world that we should know about.
95
Trump is President, what he does and says is real news.
I would like to say that, in general, the quality of reporting on these events has improved greatly in the past ten years. Especially in relation to the attackers. Coverage of terrorist events and mass shootings in 2017 tends to focus more on the victims and on how the event was able to happen, without focusing on who committed it (beyond their affiliation with any group and/or if they were a known risk). It's not perfect, but it's getting there.
Did the Times ask the British police if the photographs would be detrimental to the investigation and to the prevention of similar acts?
256
Of course not, they are above anything like that, and of course such details help only criminals not the public.
3
I agree with Arthur. The onus is not on British police to contact all media to find out whether they are in possession of any leaked information, and to prevail upon them not to publish it. They have an investigation on their hands. And we, your readership, do not need to know how to build a bomb. Public safety and a thorough and unimpeded investigation should outweigh your desire to run this story, at least until you make a few prudent inquiries.
2
Asking the cops if it's OK won't work, and for pretty obvious reasons. They are trained to not release information, no matter what.
What we don't know--and what the public editor should have found out for us--is what discussions, exactly, were held in the newsroom. Was the question asked, at least internally: If we publish this, will the investigation be harmed? That's a pretty obvious question to ask, but there is no indication that it was.
We also need to know more about the source of these photos, without identifying sources. Baquet says "widely distributed." Funny, when I googled "Manchester evidence photos" immediately after the tragedy, I didn't get anything. If "widely distributed" means it went to Interpol and some intelligence agencies outside England, that's another thing. Baquet needs to be more clear, and Spayd didn't press him. So, what does "widely distributed" mean? And I also want someone other than Baquet to say that this was not "highly classified." Was it classified at all?
"In the absence of such information, I support the Times's decision," Spayd writes. That's appalling. What Spayd is saying is, even though I'm ignorant, I can determine right from wrong. That's just plain scary.
What we don't know--and what the public editor should have found out for us--is what discussions, exactly, were held in the newsroom. Was the question asked, at least internally: If we publish this, will the investigation be harmed? That's a pretty obvious question to ask, but there is no indication that it was.
We also need to know more about the source of these photos, without identifying sources. Baquet says "widely distributed." Funny, when I googled "Manchester evidence photos" immediately after the tragedy, I didn't get anything. If "widely distributed" means it went to Interpol and some intelligence agencies outside England, that's another thing. Baquet needs to be more clear, and Spayd didn't press him. So, what does "widely distributed" mean? And I also want someone other than Baquet to say that this was not "highly classified." Was it classified at all?
"In the absence of such information, I support the Times's decision," Spayd writes. That's appalling. What Spayd is saying is, even though I'm ignorant, I can determine right from wrong. That's just plain scary.
2
I'm still angry at the NYT's actions.
I am a subscriber to the digital edition and for hours yesterday the article was front and centre of the page with the images constantly changing on a slideshow drawing attention in.
Children and their parents were targeted and killed at a pop concert. Others are battling for their lives as I write. Reason enough to show some restraint.
The UK is on the highest level of alert, raids and investigations are still taking place, the evidence points to a terrorist network and lives are believed to be at risk.
Finally we are only as strong as our shared information and the NYT's actions caused a - thankfully - temporary break in the intelligence sharing between the UK & US.
Come on NYT. Take responsibility. Act responsibly. You are better than this.
I am a subscriber to the digital edition and for hours yesterday the article was front and centre of the page with the images constantly changing on a slideshow drawing attention in.
Children and their parents were targeted and killed at a pop concert. Others are battling for their lives as I write. Reason enough to show some restraint.
The UK is on the highest level of alert, raids and investigations are still taking place, the evidence points to a terrorist network and lives are believed to be at risk.
Finally we are only as strong as our shared information and the NYT's actions caused a - thankfully - temporary break in the intelligence sharing between the UK & US.
Come on NYT. Take responsibility. Act responsibly. You are better than this.
272
No they are not better than this, and of course the massive attack on the president is another piece of evidence of how they operate.
9
@NYBrit
Actually, they are not better than this. They have consistently published leaked information so they can sell papers, so this is just the latest instance of it.
Actually, they are not better than this. They have consistently published leaked information so they can sell papers, so this is just the latest instance of it.
1
Agreed. Well said.
Total sanctimonious rubbish. What possible benefit was there to publishing the pictures? Sales? Proof the NYT was on top of the news? No, it was just arrogance.
305
I could not have said it better; the Public Editor should resign over this craven kneeling to the self-important editors who approved this dangerous leak of critical intelligence.
2
The images and story could prompt important witness recollection and lead to arrests and less terrorism.
Has Dean Baquet ever not stood by a decision he made? It is difficult for me to reconcile, although I'm sure the NYT will do a fine job in explaining itself, the lack of concern when the NYT's releases confidential information, and the outrage when Trump does the same.
This was a mistake, admit it.
This was a mistake, admit it.
229
It was not a mistake, they did it on purpose and don't think it was incorrect at all.
4
@Len
I wish Dean Baquet and the other editors would stop living behind armed guards, and started living with regular people. Maybe that would remind them of the vulnerability and fear that people feel in response to these tragedies.
I wish Dean Baquet and the other editors would stop living behind armed guards, and started living with regular people. Maybe that would remind them of the vulnerability and fear that people feel in response to these tragedies.
Exactly right. Mr Baquet's smugness grows old. And this is the man who got his job by going behind his boss's back and complaining to the paper's owner.
1
Two things strike me about this attempt at justification. One is the extent to which Liz Spayd seems to be completely out of the loop on how this story happened and what discussions took place between journalist and source. The second is that there seems to me to be a completely legitimate reason to hold back details of the crime when the authorities are trying to catch the bomb maker. Ditto for the premature revealing of the alleged bomber's identity. As an aside this also seems to show how much the administration has lost the trust of its intelligence agencies. It looks like payback time.
147
So payback to the president is to break your oath of office and to injure the innocent? How typical of progressives.
5
Totally, totally agree about Spayd. She's been a tremendous disappointment as a public editor, especially in comparison with her predecessor, who, not surprisingly, was hired by the Washington Post due to her excellent efforts at NYT.
Spayd doesn't even scratch the surface of what happened and why. That's what the public editor is supposed to do. I'm beginning to suspect she was hired from the advertising department of the New York Times.
Spayd doesn't even scratch the surface of what happened and why. That's what the public editor is supposed to do. I'm beginning to suspect she was hired from the advertising department of the New York Times.
1
The "oath of office" involves swearing to uphold and protect the Constitution.
"Break your oath and injure the innocent" is nothing more than surmise and opinion.
"Break your oath and injure the innocent" is nothing more than surmise and opinion.
1
This is a shoddy response. You are The New York Time, not The Daily Mail, loyal readers subscribe because of the integrity of your journalists and editorial team. This was in poor taste. The photos added no value in the same way the side bar of shame on the Daily Mail website adds no value.
240
If you think the folks here have any integrity, try to identify the massive bias in the opinion pages and the so called news.
5
Totally agree. Your justification seems flimsy to say the least. I have always upheld the NYT as the bastion of responsible and balanced reporting, but I do think this incident tarnishes your reputation.
1
If the Times is going to lower standards in this way, they're going to need to work on their making-high-minded-excuses game.
Unconvinced.
If a relative of mine had died, I would have found what looks like profiting from suffering even more offensive.
And to top it off, you have given anti-press ammunition to Trump and the Republicans.
Unconvinced.
If a relative of mine had died, I would have found what looks like profiting from suffering even more offensive.
And to top it off, you have given anti-press ammunition to Trump and the Republicans.
I believe that news organizations should have fairly wide latitude to run stories that inform the public. I was surprised and a bit confused, however when I first read the story in the Washington Post and then flipped over to see what the Times take was on a story in which they figured so prominently. I found nothing, and that was disconcerting. Did I miss something? Or was the Times's response delayed? In any event, I would have preferred the issue be addressed more promptly, or, better yet, that you show a sensitivity to the ramifications of the coverage such as to prompt its address within or almost ngside the original article.
35
NO as citizens they must follow the law, clearly this information was not for the public and should never been accepted nor published. Those responsible should be held accountable, since the law does not allow that the citizens must. Remove your financial support from this arrogant organization, send them to bankruptcy.
4
Jesus, man. If you hate the Times so much stop reading it. You've replied to every comment so far with your weird mix of vitriol and blind conservative anger, without adding anything meaningful to the discussion. It's bad for your blood pressure, and makes you look like a nutjob.
Go for a walk, it'll make your and everyone else's life a little better.
Go for a walk, it'll make your and everyone else's life a little better.
2
Methinks he's paid per post
I believe the Times made a poor decision in this instance. The pictures had little illustrative value to add to the ostensible point of story. Also, if the Times obtained the photos from American intelligence sources, it's unclear that British authorities had the wherewithal to approach the Times before publication. I strongly suspect that the lust for the "get" compromised consideration of the public interest.
136
I find it hard to give too much credence to the British Government on this question. This is the same government which classified the address of the BT Tower (a large telecommunications tower in the heart of London). The British Government also has a history of influencing court decisions in a manner that would not be considered acceptable in the USA, especially with regard to IRA prosecutions in the 1970s.
26
Huh? What's that got to do with the price of chips? British people are outraged at the publication of the photos, the British government and their history has nothing to do with the outrage.
Oh and bringing up the IRA, cheap, real cheap. How about you find a pub in Manchester, visit on a Friday night and bring up that topic, good luck getting served.
Oh and bringing up the IRA, cheap, real cheap. How about you find a pub in Manchester, visit on a Friday night and bring up that topic, good luck getting served.
1
What ludicrous reasons for distrusting the UK government. You're right about the BT Tower, but that was a procedural issue, not an attempt to hide where the (then) tallest building in the UK had been built. You're wrong, however, about government influencing the courts. The government frequently expresses views, opinions - even wishes - about issues being dealt with by the courts, but the judiciary is FIERCELY independent and ALWAYS apply the law as it appears on the statute books.
The UK can be mocked for many things, but a corrupt judiciary isn't one of them.
The UK can be mocked for many things, but a corrupt judiciary isn't one of them.
1
Those things happened 30 years ago and are of little relevance today. The US has its own, present problems with overclassification, and with police and prosecutorial misconduct leading to miscarriages of justice. That wouldn't stop me from wanting to run evidence by the US government before I published it and risked compromising a new investigation
". . . judgments like these aren't made lightly" at the NYTimes according to the Public Editor. But for some reason she was unable to have anybody at the NYTimes confirm that the decision to publish the photographsi wasn't made lightly. The Public Editor's justification seems to indicate that the photographs were published without much thought to the consequences so that the paper could be first with the "scoop."
112
@Craig
Liz Spayd believes everything Dean Baquet says, even when the other evidence does not support it. How is that good journalism?
Liz Spayd believes everything Dean Baquet says, even when the other evidence does not support it. How is that good journalism?
2
Blah, blah, blah, "the public interest", blah, blah, blah. The NYT is a corporation in the business of making money. The NYT isn't two guys with a printing press. Clicks are money. We know how suicide bombers work, what their tactics are, their overarching strategy, etc. We've seen all this before. Let's not demean ourselves by dressing it up in a lot of purported journalistic ethics. There is no such thing--literally.
Now, let's find someone at the FBI or CIA whose career we can ruin for leaking our British friends' stuff. It doesn't have to be the right guy.
Now, let's find someone at the FBI or CIA whose career we can ruin for leaking our British friends' stuff. It doesn't have to be the right guy.
53
"Typically in cases like this, there is an internal discussion among the top editors in the newsroom where questions are raised of just the type that readers are now voicing. Most likely that happened in this case as well, although editors have declined to discuss such conversations."
Unacceptable.
The newspaper should be transparent. Spayd's writing is maddeningly vague here. It's not clear whether editors always decline to discuss these conversations or only in this case. Regardless, the paper owes it to readers to talk about what was talked about, or provide a darn good reason why they will not do so. They have done neither, and Spayd has not pressed the point.
For me, that's a deal breaker. I could see both sides at one point, but no longer. The public editor is supposed to hold the paper accountable. She has failed to do so here, and it is a shame that editors won't do it themselves without having to be prodded.
Unacceptable.
The newspaper should be transparent. Spayd's writing is maddeningly vague here. It's not clear whether editors always decline to discuss these conversations or only in this case. Regardless, the paper owes it to readers to talk about what was talked about, or provide a darn good reason why they will not do so. They have done neither, and Spayd has not pressed the point.
For me, that's a deal breaker. I could see both sides at one point, but no longer. The public editor is supposed to hold the paper accountable. She has failed to do so here, and it is a shame that editors won't do it themselves without having to be prodded.
216
My thoughts, too. Apparently publishing such pictures and naming the suspect ARE in the public interest, while openly explaining how those decisions to publish were taken ISN'T, even though it's resulted in a rift between the world's two closest intelligence community allies. The clear implication is that the NYT is very well aware of the occasional need to withhold certain information. If it can be justified on more or less commercial grounds, what mindset imagines it's not necessary in a matter of life and death?
Spot on. Recast it with Sean Spicer saying words like that.
1
More intereesting would be to understand who leaked the info and why. The objective was clearly to sow discord between US and UK - which was achieved.
55
More likely, the objective was to curry favor with a NYT writer -- maybe for personal advancement, maybe to get a date, maybe for cash. All are disgusting.
1
....or to damage the credibility of our intelligence sources - something the current administration has a huge stake in doing. Was the NYT used to do this job for them?
And what, exactly, does "most likely" mean? Either there was a responsible discussion or there was not.
For people with knowledge of cybersecurity and forensic evidence publishing those photos should have raised a huge, red ethical flag.
And what, exactly, does "most likely" mean? Either there was a responsible discussion or there was not.
For people with knowledge of cybersecurity and forensic evidence publishing those photos should have raised a huge, red ethical flag.
Why should we believe that US intelligence officials leaked it? I don't trust the motives of the British government in making this accusation. There is an election in 2 weeks and they benefit from finger pointing.
1
You have not made a convincing argument for the New York Times publishing these photos. Perhaps, as you say, it may be useful for the public to know what goes into these bombs, but even if that was the case there was no compelling reason to publish them so soon with the investigation just getting started. From reading the comments on the original article it is obvious that few of your readers agreed with their publication. I think that alone should give you pause.
109
Oh please. The piece was so patently sensationalist and lurid, I didn't even bother clicking on it (and still haven't). Mr. Baquet's tissue thin "public needs to see how terrorists work" justification is so utterly lame, it hardly deserves to be called such. At least the English tabs have to courage of their (lack of) convictions. If the Times is so desperate to drive page views it must resort to images of bloody shrapnel so be it, but please, spare us the self righteous horse manure.
195
With all due respect, if you didn't click on it, how did you know it was sensational?
Mind reading powers?
Mind reading powers?
2
I admit that it satisfied a sick curiosity about how it all went down, but I immediately wondered if we weren't tipping our hand by revealing how much we find out in the aftermath of such acts.
It also left a bad taste in my mouth that so soon after lives were lost, they were reduced to red dots on a graphic.
It also left a bad taste in my mouth that so soon after lives were lost, they were reduced to red dots on a graphic.
55
Your argument for publishing the photographs is not well thought through, nor well argued. You have not named the source yet you say it was not confidential information.
And neither had the U.K. Government released the photographs. Nor have you explained the compelling reason, nor the insights, gained from releasing these graphic photographs.
My take aways from this article - The Times is willing to sacrifice its integrity to be first, and the Public Editor is a willing accomplice.
And neither had the U.K. Government released the photographs. Nor have you explained the compelling reason, nor the insights, gained from releasing these graphic photographs.
My take aways from this article - The Times is willing to sacrifice its integrity to be first, and the Public Editor is a willing accomplice.
129
The Times came into possession of unauthorized information and published it. Ms Spayd suggests that the onus is on the victimized governments to argue against publication. But there is no way for the United States or British governments to know that the Times has the information and intends to publish it unless the Times engages with the governments. There is no evidence in Ms Spayd's exculpation of her employer that the Times did this. This failure is inexcusable.
162
I can't believe you used the term 'unauthorized information'. Please stop what you are doing and go read '1984'. The day that the Times relies on only authorized information is the day when I cancel my subscription.
2
The issue that needs a better discussion is how. The photos and whatever evidence got to be in print. End of day and substance-wise doesn't seem an issue. The guys investigating may have issues. The real question is was the editorial decision to print
driven by a ratings type of concern or public interest. Only the NYT has the answer
driven by a ratings type of concern or public interest. Only the NYT has the answer
17
Cancel my digital subscription
44
i have been considering the same....
We need our free press. I'm happy to subscribe to that end. It works both ways: We keep our subscriptions, and you keep up your quality. Please apologize, NYT, and no more idiotic whitewashing when you make a mistake.
Chiedere, dopo 5 segnalazioni, i servizi segreti britannici nessun intervento, si chiude la stalla dopo che i buoi sono scappati.
While I appreciate the Editor addressing the questions raised by the NYT publishing 'leaked' information from an urgent, ongoing investigation of the recent Manchester bombing, I find the answer wanting. Although there is a compelling need to know details of such large, difficult investigation there's absolutely no urgency in publication of information which could compromise ongoing investigation into such a time-sensitive public terrorist threat. It is also troublesome that there was a decision to override investigators' request to keep data secure without noting the Editor's discussion with authorities; the pictures simply didn't add that much to the report.
An excellent feature of this report was the inclusion of extremely helpful figures that helped me put the grime facts and media coverage into spatial context.
An excellent feature of this report was the inclusion of extremely helpful figures that helped me put the grime facts and media coverage into spatial context.
26
it seems that the factor with the heaviest weight in the decision to publish the photos was the Times desire to "scoop" the other news outlets by putting out the photos first. There really is no excuse for distributing information that might compromise an investigation. I am a long time subscriber and I am disappointed.
145
Right on! The NYT is getting 'creamed' by the WP who have recently upped their game and now have a website that is far more dynamic and regularly updated. Responding to this particular tragedy with a "scoop" of this nature, rationalized in this way by the editor is more than disappointing!
Better to stick with photos of those killed than pics of the means of destruction. Times editors could have checked with British and American law enforcement to see if the photos would have caused a problem if released. As a publisher, writer and editor I know I have made an error if I become the story instead of the story being the story.
102
"As a publisher writer and editor, I know I have made an error if I become the story instead of the story being the story."
Careful, now. The NYT was the story when it defied the government and published the Pentagon Papers, and that was not a bad thing for NYT. There are lots of other examples like that. As a journalist, you should know that you cannot, for obvious reasons, rely on the government or the police to tell you what to publish and what not to publish. If we relied on the cops to tell us what to publish, newspapers would never publish anything.
This said, we need to know far, far more than we do now before we can make a reasoned judgment about this case, and the onus is on the Times to tell us what we need to know. That the Times is not doing so doesn't speak well for the Times. The cover-up is usually worse than the underlying crime, and the balderdash in this column, both from the public editor and Baquet, speaks volumes. It's still early, but this isn't looking like it will end well for the New York Times.
Careful, now. The NYT was the story when it defied the government and published the Pentagon Papers, and that was not a bad thing for NYT. There are lots of other examples like that. As a journalist, you should know that you cannot, for obvious reasons, rely on the government or the police to tell you what to publish and what not to publish. If we relied on the cops to tell us what to publish, newspapers would never publish anything.
This said, we need to know far, far more than we do now before we can make a reasoned judgment about this case, and the onus is on the Times to tell us what we need to know. That the Times is not doing so doesn't speak well for the Times. The cover-up is usually worse than the underlying crime, and the balderdash in this column, both from the public editor and Baquet, speaks volumes. It's still early, but this isn't looking like it will end well for the New York Times.
2
NYT is a losing and unethical "newspaper"
25
Donald, go back to Twitter.
1
Dear Dean, those published photos of bomb components easily could have tipped off the bomb maker- a bomb maker British authorities were very actively pursuing at that time. Your explanation does not address this whatsoever.
105
Gee, you think the bombmaker needed a tip from the Times that the authorities wanted a chat with him? What a lame argument.
2
The real story, which The Times and other media have avoided, is why this leak happened, when it is so obvious that anything that harms counterrorism objectively harms the public and assuredly the leaker as a law enforcement person as well. What is so serious in this case is that the objective can only be to embarass Donald Trump, to an extent matching the harm brought to the credibility of the USA and to the risks brought to the relationship between the USA and its intelligence-sharing allies. It is a surprising indicator of the depth of the animosity between the president and his senior officials.
20
Oh, come on. This is a gross rationalization for the Times' decision. Maybe discussions with the Brits didn't take place so it's their own fault? US intelligence leaked it so it's their fault? It's everyone's responsibility except the Times eh? No one needs to see those photos. They add nothing. Are your readers going to be junior terrorist- fighters now that we have these pictures? Spare me. All this does is give Trump and the press haters real ammo in their assault. Nice work.
85
That's not a very convincing argument for publishing the images. Why wouldn't the editors who made the decision discuss - with the Public Editor no less - their decision making process? Surely that can't be confidential?
78
the outrage is IMO completely unjustified, and i fully support the decision of the NYT...i honestly failed to see how this would compromise the investigation..i am much more outraged by trump's leaks to the russians
21
You have not sweated through the details of how the police investigation requires discretion and surprise against perpetrators.
Are you a crime scene investigator? If not, that might explain why you don't understand why publication could jeopardise the investigation, especially in its early phases.
The New York Times has embarrassed itself and its loyal readers by publishing British investigative evidence, indeed, spreading one of the photographs across today's front page like a cheap tabloid! This gratuitous sensationalism insults the intelligence of your readers. Extremely poor judgment by Times editors!
103
"So should The Times have published? It’s hard to say conclusively without knowing whether British officials made a specific case for how this would endanger their investigation."
Well, once the info was published this is a moot point. The British authorities shouldn't have to argue this. If they wanted this info released to the public they would have done so. The need for the public to know every detail in real time [or very near real time] should not take priority over the time it takes to piece together the information and ACT on it. These were not details that the public needed to know immediately, so why rush to splash it on the 'front page'?
Taking the ball out investigators hands in order to get a scoop or an exclusive is irresponsible of both the Times and the person who provided the information in the first place. This does not seem like a particularly arduous decision to make. How difficult would it have been to contact the British investigators before running it?
Would the Times have acted differently if the attack happened here in the US?
Well, once the info was published this is a moot point. The British authorities shouldn't have to argue this. If they wanted this info released to the public they would have done so. The need for the public to know every detail in real time [or very near real time] should not take priority over the time it takes to piece together the information and ACT on it. These were not details that the public needed to know immediately, so why rush to splash it on the 'front page'?
Taking the ball out investigators hands in order to get a scoop or an exclusive is irresponsible of both the Times and the person who provided the information in the first place. This does not seem like a particularly arduous decision to make. How difficult would it have been to contact the British investigators before running it?
Would the Times have acted differently if the attack happened here in the US?
52
Cancelling my subscription. You should have not done it and you do not see fit to apologize. JJ
54
Gonna miss you and I assume you will now be getting your American News fix from USA Today and Fox News?
2
No certainly not, I may have let my emotions get the better of me posting my earlier comment.
Nonetheless, I am still not satisfied with The NYT's response however everyone deserves a second chance right? JJ
Nonetheless, I am still not satisfied with The NYT's response however everyone deserves a second chance right? JJ
1
Lix Spayd: "...I support The Times’s decision."
What else is new? Supporting Times management is what this public editor does. And does. And does.
So much for the paper's "internal critic."
What else is new? Supporting Times management is what this public editor does. And does. And does.
So much for the paper's "internal critic."
80
This is not "plenty of readers." The vast majority of readers objected to this small-minded decision, as is evident from the comments section. In fact, more readers agreed that this decision was selfish click-chasing then I can remember for any other issue, and I've been reading NYT a long time. So, in addition to being blind to reason, you also seem to be tone-deaf to your readership.
141
Well, I do not agree.
I think it is time for a change of editorial leadership at the Times.
73
And a change of public editor.
1
I for one am glad that the Times published the leaked name.
I would have never guessed that he was Libyan and just went to Syria. I thought Trump's ban on those countries was arbitrary.
I thought the attacker would be an old white Christian grandma.
I would have never guessed that he was Libyan and just went to Syria. I thought Trump's ban on those countries was arbitrary.
I thought the attacker would be an old white Christian grandma.
19
He was not Libyan. He was born and raised in England. His parents were from Libya and migrated to the U.K.
He was born in Britain, just like Tim mcVey was born in America. Nationality is not a clear correlate to sanity or violent potential in a person or people in general. We went to war with Germany twice in 40 years- why are German citizens not on the do not fly list? Or Japanese, or Italians? Did they just evolve into sane, non violent people? Conditions create heroes and villains, they are not genetic traits and it's not based on your location on the earth when you enter.
1
It would have been fine to publish those details after the accomplies had been rounded up.
1
Ms. Speyd, I find your explanation of the rationale for the Times' publication of the photos and other details unconvincing. Your readers expect better from this newspaper. In this case, the Times may have jeopardized an ongoing investigation. I don't blame the British intelligence services, and many of your readers, for being annoyed and concerned. The Times is wrong, and Mr. Baquet should admit it.
93
Well this is unsatisfying. You stand by the decision although you have no idea what discussions if any take place?
On the whole, I trust the NYT to have acted in accord with good practices, and I don't count myself among the outraged... yet.
But I don't see why the NYT editors can't be more forthcoming. They were asked to withhold the photos or not. Why can't you start there? Maybe you were, maybe you weren't reporting is far from the kind of transparency I would expect as a response.
On the whole, I trust the NYT to have acted in accord with good practices, and I don't count myself among the outraged... yet.
But I don't see why the NYT editors can't be more forthcoming. They were asked to withhold the photos or not. Why can't you start there? Maybe you were, maybe you weren't reporting is far from the kind of transparency I would expect as a response.
50
As a former journalist, I understand the mission of the press and strongly support the public's right -- and need -- to be informed. But I don't find the Times' case for running this information compelling. At a time when the media are being unjustly maligned for doing their jobs and serving as the public's watchdog -- think Montana -- it's unfortunate that the Times made a questionable decision in a situation where restraint was called for.
65
Keep publishing. I found the information valuable because it informed. does anybody think the person or persons involved don't already know what was used? This appears to be manufactured outrage on the part of the British government.
21
But it gives warning to the remaining perpetrators of the need to destroy ALL evidence.
What you are forgetting are the victims families, many of whom were still looking for their loved ones when these explicit photos were published.
Do feel free to visit Britain in the near future and test your hypothesis that this is manufactured outrage by publicly defending your view in any city centre.
2
The Times does not give a damn about the public interest. If it did it would not be so intent on destroying our President. This is the same newspaper that ignored most of the disgraceful actions of the most dishonest President in history, Obama. The Times seems to like to give aid and comfort to our enemies.
15
Different point of view, they are reporting on a failing presidential wanna be.
1
The president is intent on destroying the public interest. I support the Times shining light on his actions. I also am all too familiar with the U.K. government's attacks on press freedoms. When I lived in London I had to buy books in the US that were banned in Britain because they made it he powerful uncomfortable. If the U.K. government is unhappy with this information being publish d, their track record helps to convince me it should have been published.
1
I support the Times position about their Manchester story. The public have the right to know information in a timely manner. This is not a irresponsible leak - it is responsible journalism. This is why I subscribe to the NYT.
20
As a long time reader who often recommends the NYT to friends looking for quality journalism, I know that you have the highest regard for telling it like it is. And I get that you feel that the bloody detonator photo helped communicate the truth. But I cannot help but feel a bit violated by the graphic violence porn-like quality of those images. Just yuck. I personally don't agree that those images, along with your breathless coverage of Manchester, serves any real purpose other that the bottom line of the NYT.
34
Self centered much? Upon looking at photos of a bomb used to kill children you think about how it makes you feel yucky because it's gross looking. Unbelievable.
In reading your rationale for the NYT publication of these images you cite the benefit of educating the public. My question is what precisely would you have me do with this information? How does this impact actions I or others may take? If I know the makeup of this pack are you suggesting I can potentially identify one in the future that might also be used by a suicide bomber? Or somehow be better able to protect myself from these random acts of incredible violence? I just don't see how that is a reasonable conclusion.
75
"... although editors have declined to discuss such conversations."
Seriously? Your own editors won't talk to you about how they put a story together or how they decided what's appropriate to run in such a sensitive matter?
Doesn't speak well for your own newspaper.
Shaun Eli Breidbart
www.BrainChampagne.com
Seriously? Your own editors won't talk to you about how they put a story together or how they decided what's appropriate to run in such a sensitive matter?
Doesn't speak well for your own newspaper.
Shaun Eli Breidbart
www.BrainChampagne.com
70
I like the shameless self promotion.
1
Of course other outlets published these pictures after the Times; these days, once something is published, it can’t be unpublished.
I normally lean in favor of publishing stories and images that officialdom prefers to keep out of public view – for example, images of the caskets of war dead returning to the United States. But these images are different; they are germane to the investigation of an atrocious crime. They would mean nothing to readers, but their publication could put bomb-makers more on their guard to frustrate detection. Frankly, I consider these images as equivalent to soft porn, which the Times uses its judgment to avoid (though it gets pretty close in some of the ads in its shiny magazines, when big bucks are at stake).
I normally lean in favor of publishing stories and images that officialdom prefers to keep out of public view – for example, images of the caskets of war dead returning to the United States. But these images are different; they are germane to the investigation of an atrocious crime. They would mean nothing to readers, but their publication could put bomb-makers more on their guard to frustrate detection. Frankly, I consider these images as equivalent to soft porn, which the Times uses its judgment to avoid (though it gets pretty close in some of the ads in its shiny magazines, when big bucks are at stake).
107
Well why did they rush to publish those photos, even here in the UK they hadn't been printed, so yes it has had a detrimental disaster to our case here, it may just have been those last details that the police and forensics teams here wanted kept out of the press, if only for security reasons, then bloody typical of American newspaper's blowing the one lead that should never have been printed in your papers, it happened in OUR country NOT yours, and who ever leaked that news, I hope they got paid enough blodd money for it, good job we don't live in the times, when that could be classed as treason.I for one don't think it is anything like printing soft porn, I would say more Hard Porn, with not 1 detail left out, then they wonder why we cant catch a break, and stop these evil people, is it any wonder when you have blabber mouths running about and selling photos like this and for what.Blood Money and there Pound Of Flesh.Well I hope they darned well choke on it, we know what happened and we don't need the pictures to remind us thank you very much
30
@mancuroc, I usually find myself agreeing with you, "but their publication could put the bomb-makers more on their guard to frustrate detection?"
Say what? Is your implication that the bomb-makers weren't worried about being detected, or searched for until the Times ran some pictures? I think it is a safe assumption that the bomb maker knows what he made, and probably assumes that the authorities do, too. The idea that he might not think that the authorities knew the type and 'signature" of the bomb maker's work until publication seems poorly reasoned.
@landlady, I am not sure how publication impedes the investigation or impedes counterterrorism efforts.
I am not convinced of the Times' rationale for oublishing, but neither am I convinced by the hair on fire critics.
Think clearly. Think skeptically. Think critically. Do not unthinkingly adopt either side's talking points.
Say what? Is your implication that the bomb-makers weren't worried about being detected, or searched for until the Times ran some pictures? I think it is a safe assumption that the bomb maker knows what he made, and probably assumes that the authorities do, too. The idea that he might not think that the authorities knew the type and 'signature" of the bomb maker's work until publication seems poorly reasoned.
@landlady, I am not sure how publication impedes the investigation or impedes counterterrorism efforts.
I am not convinced of the Times' rationale for oublishing, but neither am I convinced by the hair on fire critics.
Think clearly. Think skeptically. Think critically. Do not unthinkingly adopt either side's talking points.
1