Public editor recalls previous case when family’s request for blackout was ignored; government official involved in previous negotiations argues it’s “too bad the media aren’t always such a big help”

VARIOUS DATELINES
Media reaction was mixed following the revelation last week that Western media had kept quiet about the kidnapping of a CBC reporter for 28 days, bowing to government fears that releasing information about the kidnapping would endanger negotiations for the hostage’s release.

Melissa Fung was set free in apparent good physical health about two weeks ago.

As examined in last week’s commentary in Ethics Newsline®, the media’s decision to not disclose the incident ran counter to the general assumption that journalists’ duty is to report. But on the other end of the spectrum is the assumption, as articulated in the Canadian Press wire service guide, that “no news story is worth someone’s life.”

In the aftermath of the incident, various Canadian news organizations weighed in on its ethical implications:

• From the London, Ontario, Free Press’s Larry Cornies: “The impulse among journalists to protect one of their own is understandable, even laudable. But the suspension by any news organization of its primary missional activity — the timely, fair, and open reporting of information to the public — represents a descent into murky waters. If Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon were abducted on an upcoming trip to Kandahar Air Field, would Canadian journalism executives abide by a similar request from the Prime Minister’s Office not to report it?”
• Toronto Star public editor Kathy English noted that her paper had confronted a similar dilemma earlier this year when the family of an Edmonton man taken into custody in North Korea pleaded with the paper to not report the incident, hoping that quiet diplomacy would secure his release. The Star did not comply, and although the man was eventually released, English faced an uncomfortable confrontation with the kidnap victim’s daughter. “I explained what [Asia Bureau Chief Bill] Schiller had already told her: that the incarceration of a Canadian by a foreign government was an issue of important public interest in Canada. So, too, was the question of what Canadian authorities were doing to secure his release. I added that as information about her father’s plight had already been posted on the Internet, it was likely that other journalists would report it, perhaps with less sensitivity than Schiller, who conveyed the family’s concerns about publicity.” English concluded that while there were significant differences in the cases, she remains troubled by the disparity in the way they were handled and quotes observers who say the Star needs a clear policy on such incidents.
• Gar Pardy, former director general of Consular Services for Canada, wrote an opinion piece for Ontario’s Windsor Star titled, “Too Bad Media Aren’t Always Such a Big Help.” Pardy recounts how he was involved in negotiations for the release of several Canadians kidnapped in volatile areas. He charges that in at least one case, involving the kidnapping of seven Canadians in Ecuador in 1999, “there was no introspection on the part of the media on the impact of the reporting. For most the story was more important than the well-being of those being force-marched through the Ecuadorian and possibly the Colombian jungles.” Arguing that publicity was often the kidnappers’ motivating factor, Pardy contends that not only was there little cooperation from the press, but that “more often than not the media were antagonistic and there was a view that government officials were hiding behind the no-publicity pleas in order to cover up mistakes and inaction.”

Sources: Free Press, Nov. 21 — Toronto Star, Nov. 15 — Windsor Star, Nov. 15.

For more information, see: Related Newsline Commentary, Nov. 17 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 6 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 16 — Related Newsline story, June 6 — Related Newsline story, May 19.