2 thoughts on “The Times

  1. actually, i find the new yorker piece itself to be a little puzzling. two things the new yorker piece don’t mention: first, it was abundantly obvious that davis was some kind of american intelligence agent. the times reporting made that perfectly clear even if they didn’t go out and say so. as someone who was following the story quite closely, i don’t think it’s decision not to use the letters “c-i-a” did anything to undermine the reporting of the story. contrary to amy davidson’s speculation in the new yorker piece, it was abundantly clear why the pakistanis were so upset: davis shot two pakistanis multiple times, called someone from the embassy to help him who ended up running over and killing a third person and then after he was arrested the u.s. government was working hard to stop pakistan from prosecuting davis. all of that was reported, so there never was any question why the pakistanis were so upset.

    second, the state dept apparently told the NYT that if they published that he was CIA it would complicate their efforts to negotiate his release. that’s the answer to amy davidson’s point #1 in the new yorker piece. she acts as if the risk was to her personal safety but if you look at the block quote from the new yorker piece words like “as constructive an atmosphere as possible” and “working to resolve the diplomatic crisis” make it clear that the u.s. government was talking about endangering the prospects of resolving the matter, and not that davis was in danger of some imminent attack.

Comments are closed.