Bruce Benidt
Jon Austin
tcarideo
Ellen Mrja
Mike Keliher
Joe LovelandI wrote a post over at the Idea Peepshow, a site that’s team-written by all of us at Fast Horse, that I thought y’all might find interesting. Feel free to pick up the discussion here or there; either way, I’m eager to hear what you think about this:
New York Times reporter David Rohde had been taken captive by the Taliban in Afghanistan seven months ago and — thank the deity of your choosing — he recently escaped and found his way to safety. That’s wonderful news.
Speaking of news, I would have guessed this gentleman’s capture itself would have qualified as news. The Times, however, thinks not, as it kept the story under wraps for the full seven months.
The NPR interview I linked to is well worth the listen if the topic interests you.
Filed under: Ethics, Journalism | Tagged: David Rohde, hostage, New York Times
First reaction, McBride–the Poynter Institute guru– should be fired. This is clearly an exceptional case where a collective conscience thankfully prevailed. None of us would have willingly endangered one of our own–and anyone breaking that story likely would have experienced a nice sales spike.
But by that logic, shouldn’t the reporters, anchors and producers who are so quick to tell the story of defense contractors or ship captains who are taken hostage also be fired? They didn’t seem to have the same inclination to bite their tongues in most of those cases.
Probably a good point MK. But taking each instance individually can we assume revealing those stories were potentially as threatening as that of this reporter? Obviously I’m not a journalist but I can sense there must be justifiable instances where restraint is the only acceptable course. I’m thinking about it, and as a reporter, knowing I would place a subject in great peril, I have to hold it don’t I? Isn’t it a choice I have to make?
I don’t know of any factor that makes this case more or less threatening for the hostage than the other recent, non-journalist examples, so that makes it tough to judge, I suppose.
We have to keep in mind, choosing to report this story is not the same as condemning the journalist to death. Increases the odds, sure, but direct cause-and-effect? No.
And don’t journalists in combat zones take on a bit of acknowledged risk? Not saying they’re signing up for kidnappings and looming threats of death, but it sure as shit ain’t the same as covering the city council back home.
Hey MK–I’m not sure I totally get your second paragraph above, especially “increases the odds.”
Okay, you’re intrepid, globe-trotting journalist. You’ve stumbled upon some insider information that only you possess. It has the potential to be an explosive, informative, revealing story, but you know (or at least have a well-founded fear) that to go public would “increase the odds”, greatly intensify the life-threatening predicament of the subjects you’re writing about. Do you run with the story?
By “increases the odds” I meant that, by reporting this story and bringing the hostage situation to light, journalists would likely be increasing the odds of putting that hostage in danger.
To answer your hypothetical: It depends. But without having specific considerations to weigh — thereby exercising ethical discretion in the absolute dark — I’d say probably.
But more than whether this story should or should not have been run, I’m intrigued and a bit troubled by that which appears to be a double-standard. Contractor in Iraq? Put his face on CNN, ASAP! Journalist in Afghanistan? Oooh, careful.
Well, that’s the point. You have enough information to surmise that to run this particular story about this particular hostage you are “increasing the odds” of ratcheting up significantly a life-endangering situation.
So, “probably” means it’s a go, regardless? You are one hard-boiled reporter.
McBride implied a double-standard. What do all the journalists out in blogland think. More likely to protect one of their own, and anyone else is just a story?
On the Media talks to Jimmy Wales, founder and chief beard-sporter of Wikipedia, which played a big part in this whole cover-up story. OTM is always great: http://onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/07/10/03
Thanks for the link MK. Quite an intriguing subject, isn’t it?