Forgive me for my absence, due to an extended vacation combined with family medical emergencies--
There were a couple of stories that came out in early May that I thought were interesting. The first had to do with events sixty years ago, and the second occurred only a few weeks ago.
In May of 1945, the surrender of Germany in World War II was imminent. The western allies (United States, Germany, and France) had forged an uneasy alliance with the Russians in the east. Many agreements had been reached to keep all parties satisfied as the war came to a close in Europe. One of these agreements had to do with the announcement of Germany's surrender. The decision was made by U.S. President Truman and British Prime Minister Churchill to delay the announcement of the surrender in Reims, France for a day so as to allow Josef Stalin to arrange a second surrender ceremony in Berlin.
Seventeen reporters from the United States were invited to attend the surrender in France. While on the plane there, they were told that a condition of the invitation was to keep the news secret until they were authorized to release it, and they all pledged to do so. So the deal was this: "We, the military, will allow you to witness the surrender if you agree to delay reporting the news until we authorize you to do so." If any of the reporters had disagreed, it would have been a simple matter to not pledge their silence and forfeit their opportunity to be present.
Edward Kennedy of the Associated Press was one of those reporters. Like the other sixteen reporters, he witnessed the surrender. But unlike them, he decided that the news was too important to hold back. He used an unsecured, unmonitored telephone to report the surrender back to his superiors in London. In addition, he did not tell them of the preconditions for witnessing it or his pledge to withhold the information until authorized. The Associated Press then released the story within minutes.
The other sixteen reporters who honored their pledge and their agencies felt betrayed and outraged. The military temporarily banned the Associated Press from releasing any other information from Europe and Kennedy was expelled from France. The AP's general manager stated, "No employee of the Associated Press has the right to disregard what is defined by the source as a pledge of confidence." Kennedy was later dismissed. His defense was, "The absurdity of attempting to bottle up news of such magnitude was too apparent."
The reason this story was in the news recently is that the AP had a change of heart and issued an apology for the way it treated Kennedy.
The second story had to do with a gentleman named Cardone who was on a Delta Airlines flight who filmed a bird strike using his iPad shortly after takeoff on a flight to Los Angeles. The video was posted on the Internet and received wide circulation. The FAA reprimanded the passenger for defying the instructions of the flight crew in operating an electronic device during takeoff; they could potentially have fined him thousands of dollars. So the deal was this: "We, the FAA and airlines, will allow you to bring electronic devices on board, and use them during the flight, but in return for that you must agree to turn them off when instructed to do so." If you disagree with that, then it is a simple matter for you to leave your device, or yourself, at home. His defense was, "It's ridiculous... to think that a device, a telephone, or this iPad can take down a plane - to think that... is ridiculous." He also stated that if the devices were that dangerous, then the FAA should ban them from all flights.
Here we have two men who voluntarily entered into agreements. It is coincidental that both involved airplanes. No one forced Mr. Kennedy or Mr. Cardone into getting on those planes. Mr. Kennedy was invited as a guest of the U.S. military to observe a truly historic event, and this invitation was contingent on his temporary silence. Mr. Cardone was allowed to bring his device on his flight, and this was contingent on his using it as allowed by law. Both of these men decided that keeping up their end of the agreement was "absurd" and "ridiculous." The Bible tells us the importance of upholding our end of agreements and pledges (Matthew 5:37, for example). It is a sorry thing indeed when we decide that we don't have to honor our committments. If you later decide in retrospect that what you agreed to was absurd, the what does that say about your intelligence in agreeing to an absurd thing in the first place? And if you decide in advance to violate a law that is "ridiculous," have you not made a mockery of law? In both cases, these individuals decided that they were too good to uphold their part of an agreement. Be cautious in dealing with people of this sort, wary of their pledges and promises, lest you find your agreement in tatters.
