On the release of CIA agent Raymond Davis, who was held in Pakistan on charges of killing two Pakistani men on a street in Lahore, the Times explains the reaction (3/17/11)

The Davis episode was particularly sensitive because of the resentment among Pakistanis who believe that a growing American security contingent roams the country with relative impunity.

The Davis incident would seem to confirm this "belief," wouldn't it?

New York Times public editor Arthur Brisbane (2/27/11) offers a justification that makes very little sense for his paper's concealing the fact that an American arrested in Pakistan worked for the CIA. The Times, Brisbane wrote, could not "take the risk that reporting the CIA connection would, as warned, lead to Mr. Davis’s death."

Davis was arrested for murder after allegedly shooting two people in Pakistan. Pakistan has the death penalty, so in theory he could be tried and executed if found guilty. Is that the risk that the New York Times is concerned about? If so, is that how the Times approaches all its crime reporting? This would lead to some interesting editorial conversations:

"We found out that the suspect took out a big insurance policy on his wife just before she disappeared, chief."

"We can't report that!! We're journalists! Do you want to get someone killed??"

The closest Brisbane comes to explaining the Times' logic is this: "The American government hoped to avoid inflaming Pakistani opinion and to create 'as constructive an atmosphere as possible' while working to resolve the diplomatic crisis." In other words, it will be easier for the U.S. to get Davis out of the country where he can't face trial if key facts in the case are hushed up. If you think that's a good reason for self-censoring your reporting, then you have no business calling yourself a journalist.

UPDATE: The New Yorker's Amy Davidson (2/28/11) delves into Brisbane's illogic in greater detail.

Yesterday the Guardian reported that Raymond Davis, the American held in Pakistan on charges of killing two men last month in Lahore, was working for the CIA. The Davis case has received sustained coverage in the U.S. media and is the subject of intense U.S lobbying. All the while U.S. officials referred to Davis as a "diplomat."

Today the New York Times has posted a story on its website catching up with the Guardian. The most notable revelation, though, comes when the Times admits that it knew Davis' status--but obeyed a government request to keep it quiet:

The New York Times had agreed to temporarily withhold information about Mr. Davis' ties to the agency at the request of the Obama administration, which argued that disclosure of his specific job would put his life at risk. Several foreign news organizations have disclosed some aspects of Mr. Davis' work with the CIA, and on Monday, American officials lifted their request to withhold publication.

So is the lesson here that if you're interested in what your government is doing, read a foreign newspaper?

UPDATE: Michael Calderone at Yahoo! News notes that several U.S. outlets-- the Post, the New York Times and the Associated Press-- knew about Davis' status. The Guardian was asked by U.S. officials to keep Davis' status under wraps, but decided not to:

Ian Katz, deputy editor of The Guardian, told The Cutline that "similar representations were made to the Guardian to those received by U.S. media." But unlike its U.S. counterparts, The Guardian went ahead with the story.

Katz noted that two senior Pakistan government sources officially confirmed that Davis was a CIA operative and explained in an email why it was relevant to report.

"We believe Davis's role in Pakistan is unavoidably connected with both the legal case surrounding him and with the U.S. government's attempts to seek his release," Katz said. "And since Davis is already widely assumed in Pakistan to have links to U.S. intelligence, we did not accept that disclosing his CIA role would expose him to increased risk."