Given the massive media coverage on the Venezuelan raid, one aspect — an intriguing and fascinating journalism ethics issue — has received very little, if any, attention.

It deserves a deep and penetrating analysis.

As the reporting started, I wondered, given the numerous agencies and thousands involved in the planning, how the plan remained secret.

It turns out it didn’t.

The New York Times, The Washington Post and other media outlets learned of plans for the attack but were asked by the administration not to publish any stories.

They presumably argued:

—Publicity would eliminate the crucial element of surprise.

—To scuttle the military action would waste millions if not billions of dollars spent in planning.

—To proceed after publication of the proposed raid would jeopardize the lives of military personnel.

So, what to do?

To concur would imply, justified or not, agreement with the operation. That is not the role of a reporter. And, equally important, the media would not have any of the classified information needed to make a decision whether the attack was warranted.

Holding back would risk losing a huge story to a competitor who may decide to run with the story. That could have major financial implications for those complying with the request of what some would call “censorship.”

Those who would “spike” the story would lose credibility with their TV and newspaper........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)