It was a happy surprise on Saturday morning to see the New York Times reveal that one of its top reporters, David Rohde, had escaped from his Taliban kidnappers, after seven months, and was now safe and unharmed. I can't imagine how shocking this was for nearly everyone else, who had no idea he had even been kidnapped.
My magazine, Editor & Publisher, was among the media outlets aware, very early on (probably ahead of many others), that Rohde had been snatched along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. I can't even recall how we learned of it. Like others, we did not write about it, even after New York Times editors confirmed it for us, off the record, of course. Times executive editor Bill Keller on Saturday told our Joe Strupp that we were among at least 40 news outlets that knew about the kidnapping.
In fact, what I witnessed in the six months after we found out about it was the most amazing press blackout on a major event that I have ever seen: at least in the case of a story involving such a prominent news outlet and a leading reporter. I wonder how strongly, if at all, this non-reporting will be criticized in the weeks to come.
Remember: when Jill Carroll was kidnapped, the Christian Science Monitor only managed to keep it a secret over a weekend. She ended being held for months.
Even the blogosphere was almost totally silent, or in the dark. Every few days I googled it and found almost nothing from blogs and foreign sources. This was even more astounding than the mainstream media blackout. You could say the blackout worked, or that all sorts of people, around the world, were scrupulous about this tragedy.
We did occasionally weigh going public, as months, and months passed. Every few weeks we checked in with one Times editor or another. Editors explained that efforts were going on to free Rohde and it was so sensitive any news break might jeopardize this. But the editors were not heavy handed in demanding silence on our part, although they must have been worried that (even) we knew about the kidnapping. Frankly, we wondered why they weren't more insistent -- perhaps they assumed the best about their media colleagues.
If so, that faith certainly was upheld.
We also talked to a top journalism ethicist, an editor for another top foreign news outlet and a foreign reporter quite aware of the Rohde situation. One editor wondered if the Times, or anyone else, was considering paying ransom money, as often happens (apparently this did not take place). He also claimed that someone at the Times had been shown a photo of Rohde in captivity and it was worrisome to be sure.
I had one major personal concern: In keeping the story secret were we jeopardizing other reporters, or even other citizens, who might be traveling in the region of the kidnapping unaware of the dangers? I feared that we were all doing a disservice to many others for the sake of, maybe, helping the cause of one reporter. My own daughter had traveled for several weeks to Afghanistan and the region just last year, so this seemed like a legit concern.
However, I was told by someone who knew the details of the Rohde episode that he had been kidnapped in a region where almost no outsider would ever dare to tread.
So, like everyone else, we kept the story secret.
I wonder now if a great debate will break out over media ethics in not reporting a story involving one of their own when they so eagerly rush out piece about nearly everything else. I imagine some may claim that the blackout would not have held if a smaller paper, not the mighty New York Times, had been involved. Or is saving this life (actually two, there was a local reporter also snatched) self-evidently justification enough?
Bob Steele, the Poynter media ethicist, summed it up well for Strupp just now: "News organizations are balancing competing obligations if a journalist is kidnapped or detained, The primary obligation to the public is to report accurately and timely on meaningful events. If you have a journalist who is detained or kidnapped, that will generally reach the level of newsworthiness. News organizations also have an equal obligation to minimize harm. That means showing care and caution to not further endanger someone whose life may be in jeopardy. These are competing obligations and loyalties.
"There is also a matter of fairness and consistency. Would a news organization apply different standards in the case of a government diplomat or a business executive or a tourist than they would one of their own?" But he concluded: "You should not be bound by a rigid rule. Rather you make the best journalistic decision in each case. In almost all cases, the value of a human life outweighs the value of revealing facts in a kidnapping that you would usually report."
For more coverage, go to E&P here.
Greg Mitchell is editor of Editor & Publisher. His latest book is "Why Obama Won."
Follow Greg Mitchell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/GregMitch
Greg Mitchell: Another Media and Wikipedia Blackout on Kidnapping of NYT Reporter in Afghanistan
Steve Farrell, a New York Times reporter, with his aide Sultan Munadi, were seized on Saturday and freed just hours ago in a daring raid by British commandos in Afghanistan.
Times Reporter Escapes Taliban After 7 Months
New York Times reporter escapes Taliban
Poynter's Bob Steele on Rohde Kidnap Blackout: The Ethics of ...
David S. Rohde - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
David S. Rohde - The New York Times
"Editors explained that efforts were going on to free Rohde and it was so sensitive any news break might jeopardize this"
This is often true of hostage situations, or even many other situations, where publiciity could put lives at risk.
The media has shown staggering lack of responsibility and recklessness in many cases where coverage might put a life at risk. Yet when its one of their own, they step up to the plate and claim self righteousness.
In my opinion, the media as a collective is the most reprehensible entitiy in American today, behind even big business and way behind the government.
Yet when one of their own little club is involved - and make no mistake I am glad Mr. Rohde is safe - all of a sudden the veil of secrecy is sensible and justified.
The hypocrisy is astounding.
You have taken a lot of words to not answer your own question. What am I missing? Someone told you this (hearsay) and someone told you that (hearsay). But you have basically refuted all arguments against secrecy and taken a lot of words to beg the question. Who? What? When? Where? And WHY? Very simply: Why did you block news based on mere hearsay.
their security apparatus.
A lot of questions has been asked from foreign leaders mostly American and European on how to help the movement for more freedom and transparency in Iran without giving the brutal regime an excuse to
label the opposition forces as Western stooges or spies or traitors and call them as agents of great Satan and such.
If U.S wanted to help the movement or others they should go on record and declare that they will not militarily or otherwise attack Iran and as a matter fact they will prevent any other country to attack or lunch any military action against Iran as long as this fight for freedom and having a real voice in their future is going on, by doing this they will deny an important propaganda excuse from the regime and also they signal to Iranian militia and military and even the guards that Iran security is not at risk and they will feel free to take side with people and not the regime.
This will be the greatest help other government can do without looking or appearing to be interfering
in Iran domestic politics.
I hope these word will find their way to the leaders of Western countries most importantly to Mr. Obama.
Thanks
Is this because people find it hard to identify the humanity of an individual they don't personally know?
I am sure that everyone is very happy for David Rhode.. Now if the same can happen for all the others being detained that would be great.
I hope the press's hypocrisy is why the man is still alive today, and of course I'm glad he did escape and is alive. But can the press argue that it can or should be trusted when it can't adhere to its own most pious platitudes when the spotlight falls on the press itself?
Go ahead. Report. Express your views. We'll listen. But don't ask us to trust you.
Its as pathetic as this articles attempt to explain it. - No one is fooled anymore.
They were all afraid of Bush calling them unAmerican or unpatriotic for reporting the truth about the war, that they all kept their mouths shut.
The media dropped the ball for years, so why would we expect them to actually be real reporters.