“We considered this very carefully,” Maharaj said. “At the end of the day, our job is to publish information that our readers need to make informed decisions. We have a particular duty to report vigorously and impartially on all aspects of the American mission in Afghanistan. On balance, in this case, we felt that the public interest here was served by publishing a limited, but representative sample of these photos, along with a story explaining the circumstances under which they were taken.”They have a duty to their readers! Well, here's how they explained NOT releasing a video showing Barack Obama hobnobbing with Bill and Bernadine Ayers at the Rashid Khalidi going away party during the 2008 elections:
"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."Seems their promises to sources might have trumped their duty to readers on that one. Maybe the Times also has a duty to their preferred party. And before you say, "well, they are hosing Obama on these recent pictures" don't go so fast--the war is unpopular and Obama already has a timetable set for leaving. He didn't even acknowledge the heroic soldier who gave up his life to save the little girl, nor did the Times bother reporting on it.
Meanwhile, the media in general withheld pictures of the people jumping from the WTC on 9/11 and refused to print the Mohammad cartoons while going for broke on Abu Ghraib and almost every other embarrassing picture involving US troops. Just don't call them unpatriotic.
HT Pajamas Media