Why We Joined the Media Blackout on Kidnapping of NYT Reporter

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

Comments

[Alterion]

Yes, you will be critisized.

"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.

[springsm]

It was amazing but you were protecting your own. I just hanker back to 2000 and beyond when pertinent information was withheld and we had bush for 8 miserable years...I think that was close to treasonous. If the media decides not to report something that is a personal protection issue for a fellow journalist in captivity that is fine...but do it for all of them, not just the one you know. BTW...has there been any real news the past three days? Iran, Iraq, Health Reform, etc.?

[mjdz]

A media organization that decides to squash or delay a story to avoid or mitigate risk of harm to people makes sense. But if that organization picks and chooses and lets some stories out that will cause harm or significantly increase risk of harm to people is guilty of hypocracy and/or placing mmore value on the health or lives of some over others. If guilty of that, they deserve no respect as a news or journalistic organization.

[Talaan77]

I am sorry I am not understanding why some people think they have the right to know and why this is hypocrasy.

[Dunque]

You are right. You don't understand. It's hypocrisy because people's "right to know" was placed on the high altar of "journalism" by the New York TImes when it came to revealing critical components of our country's behind the scenes efforts to combat terrorism. Which have and may yet lead to more loss of life. In droves.

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.

[steamboat]

I agree with the media blackout to help with saving a man's life............But why the reverse as far as wanting pictures released overseas that would put our soldiers lives in jeopardy and would cost human lives?

[wvinvent]

I can't believe the cynicism of some people who think this was just a ploy for a big paper to keep a headline for themselves. The dark view of the world some hold, which leads them to see dark and sinister motivations in others, is really a reflection on the viewer. We see the world through eyes colored by our own proclivities, fears, and biases. Taking an incident like this and warping it into something else simply informs us that the viewer has a deep problem.

[Arouete]

Sorry if this is a duplicate but the protocol here is very confusing and unclear.

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.

[Arouete]

But aside from "someone told' told you this and 'someone told" you that, you have stated all the reasons to not keep it a secret and then failed to answer your own question: Aside from 'someone's' hearsay exactly why did you keep it a secret? Who? What? When? Where? And WHY?

[Jay-Noor]

First, I am an Iranian and with crises that Iranian public is facing, with fighting the totalitarian regime and
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

[SimonOne]

Although I agree that the news black-out probably helped for a successful outcome for this reporter, it's clear that any other person (other than a reporter form a major newspaper) would have not received the same advantage.

Is this because people find it hard to identify the humanity of an individual they don't personally know?

[chickline]

Sometimes it is better for the media not to publicize things. This eliminates the talking heads from giving their opinions, which are more often than not inflammatory.
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.

[dls76140]

I agree whole heartedly; as Mr Steele put it - this is should not be a rigid rule, each case as it applies and hopefully others in Rohde's place will benefit as well.

[steppenwolfsayshi]

Keeping something "secret" is different than publicizing it. The journalist's kidnapping was not secret because lots of people knew about it. It wasn't publicized, because it wasn't on the news, where it might have put pressure on the government to help out more to get him out of prison. Kind of a double-standard, I think. When regular people get kidnapped it usually an "event" as you say.

[Zooterpust]

Speaking of glass houses. How many times has Huffington Post and the rest of the press castigated conservatives/Republicans for their double standards and hypocrisies? Yet when a journalist from the NYT is involved, the standards regarding the public's right to know and the press's duty to report suddenly are very, very different.

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.

[SelfReliance]

One thing both sides can agree on is that the Media - especially the NYT is not adhereing to journalistic integirty. There is no intergrity in the Media. They are trying to sway public opinion in pursuit of their own agenda.

Its as pathetic as this articles attempt to explain it. - No one is fooled anymore.

[trisha08]

Why is this big news? The media had a blackout of the Iraq war for years.

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.