You may know by now that leaked photos of evidence gathered at the mass murder scene outside Manchester Arena were published in the New York Times on Wednesday. The source that provided the paper with the photographs was evidently within U.S. law enforcement.
This is apparently the NYT’s core justification and rationale for publishing them:
There are no words.
Then again, on second thought there sure are also some that need saying. And I intend to here. This is my humble response as a born New Yorker, living in the United Kingdom, which I posted earlier today on Instagram as well:
Those New York Times paragraphs defending the photos’ publication are vacuous, pompous, and insulting. I expected much better from the paper. Or maybe I shouldn’t have.
Notice they ignore this fundamental issue, which they would have cited above if they could have: that there was no immediate and compelling urgent US public interest that those leaked photos – which are part of an ongoing terror investigation here in the UK – be published there on Wednesday. They could have been published once matters had cooled down, perhaps in a week or more. But then maybe they wouldn’t have been quite the same “scoop” for the paper and not attracted the same number of eyeballs?
Thus the “core mission.” The paper’s self-interested and stupid action here has damaged US/UK cooperation and trust. The same sort of attack could well happen in New York. If it does, such cooperation and trust with UK authorities may then be vital to New Yorkers.
The NYT has freedom of speech? Guess what, so does everyone else. Here, I’m exercising mine. 22 people – mainly young girls – were murdered and as I write British police are still crashing through front doors seeking to make arrests and attempt to ascertain the scope of any possible “conspiracy” and if more attacks stemming from it may follow. “Subscribe?” If I had a NYT subscription, I’d cancel it.
They aren’t the only ones at fault here. The sudden loose lips within US law enforcement circles that leaked those photos provided by trusting UK counterparts is unprofessional and utterly disgraceful. It is unclear why those who have turned hyper-over-officiousness into an art form are now suddenly less capable of keeping a secret than a giggling 4 year old. Nor does it matter why. What is clear is that those involved in the US need to be made examples of: they should be fired and have their pensions taken away – and prosecuted if possible.