A New York times reporter, A Pulitzer prize winner, was kidnapped in Afghanistan. The times managed to not only keep it off the news, as knowledge of it might harm its reporter, they even managed with the help of Wikipedia's staff, to keep it off the reporter's Wikipedia page. Is that ok?

I'll immediately state my personal opinion - YES! I would definitely hope they would act that way, and would help them if it was in my power. But some things are bothering me here, which is why I decided to start this topic.

1. Would they have done the same if it wasn't "one of their own?"
I think we all know the answer to that - NO. That's a bit of an exaggeration. If it was an important person like the prince of England, they might have done it for a while. But for a regular shmoe - no way. I find this double face disturbing.
Would that disturbance stop me from helping them - no. Just because they're assholes doesn't mean I would want them dead, so I would help. But it is a disturbing fact nonetheless.

2.  Where do we draw the line?
There is much discussion on the censorship in Iran at the moment. What's the difference really? The Iranian government claims that information published will cause harm and death, and hence should be suppressed.  I obviously am aware that there is a difference in size, but the question still remains.

Reporters constantly report on things which the government claims will harm lives outside the country, or inside it. It is a common excuse for censorship. Personally, I many times support this kind of censorship, but the newspaper people run and claim that they should be allowed to report everything, and that in any case it is reported by the foreign press (in this case the Afghan press) so they should be allowed to report on it also.

Why then should we accept it when they perform censorship, and go the extra mile, when it's one of their own?

I would personally still help them, but should I?