In the case of the Oklahoma City Bombing, what was the outcome and philosophical reasoning of the media regarding whether or not to publish the manifesto of the Unabomber?

Question

Refused to publish the Unabomber’s manifesto because it would not make a good universal rule to succumb to terrorists.

Published the Unabomber’s manifesto in hopes that it would benefit the greater good by putting the information out to the public.

Published the Unabomber’s manifesto years after the bombing.

None of the above

Answer 1

The Unabomber sent letter bombs to industrialists who he believed were committing environmental crimes.

The Oklahoma federal building bombing was an entirely different incident where Timothy McVeigh was executed for driving a rental truck near the building causing the bombing.

The NY Times published the Unabomber's manifesto, but not years after his bombings. And not years after the Oklahoma McVeigh bombing. The unabomber wrote a letter to the NYT saying he would stop bombing if they published his manifesto. That probably was a major factor in their decision to publish it

Timothy McVeigh & the Unabomber are totally unrelated. Other than both being considered domestic terrorists, with very different motives and targets.

None of the Above seems to be the best answer.