Media Blackout on Kidnapped Journalist

[thespearkid]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105775059

Basically, a reporter for the New York Times was kidnapped by the Taliban and something like 40 news outlets agreed to not report on it in order to ensure the safety of the reporter. Opinions on this? This has sparked a very interesting debate.

[yves.]

I don't understand how a media blackout would have protected him.

[Mitch]

"I find it a little disturbing, because it makes me wonder what else 40 international news organizations have agreed not to tell the public."

Pretty much sums up my feelings.

[katiebaima]

I don't understand how a media blackout would have protected him.

i'm not really sure, but maybe because the taliban could have used the media attention to seriously hurt the reporter in order to get a message across. i can't see a reason to kidnap a reporter unless you want the attention. it reminds me a little of how to deal with kids, if you don't give them attention they'll probably give up... but it is really disturbing still

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

I don't know if the blackout helped them The only way I see a media blackout helping is that it is not giving the terrorists what they want : a public forum for their voice to be heard. Coverage would give them a sense of legitmatcy and leverage to be able to speak and have major news network in America distributing their views. Also there is the possiability that if the situation brought increased interest it would be detrimental to the those being held with details leaking of their location drawing attention from others in that region. I guess this is the media's version of "We dont negotiagate with terrorists!" way of thinking.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

"I find it a little disturbing, because it makes me wonder what else 40 international news organizations have agreed not to tell the public."

Pretty much sums up my feelings.

ya thats pretty true.

its also kinda hypocritical to not cover or disclose that they were kidnapped but then when they escape cover the crap out of that. Either do one or the other. cover the capture and the escape or blackout the capture and escape.

[TeachBirds2Fly]

I don't understand how a media blackout would have protected him.

It gives the kidnappers leverage. They are put in a possition of power and the kidnap victim become more valuable to them if there is an outcry in the West which the papers tend to create.

[TeachBirds2Fly]

Guess that is why the interent is so good for getting news.

Same thing happened when Prince Harry was fighting in Afganistan, the media agreed not to report it to protect him and he was there for a few months, then Drudge broke the news.

[thespearkid]

I don't know if the blackout helped them The only way I see a media blackout helping is that it is not giving the terrorists what they want : a public forum for their voice to be heard. Coverage would give them a sense of legitmatcy and leverage to be able to speak and have major news network in America distributing their views. Also there is the possiability that if the situation brought increased interest it would be detrimental to the those being held with details leaking of their location drawing attention from others in that region. I guess this is the media's version of "We dont negotiagate with terrorists!" way of thinking.
Perhaps. I also find it a little messed up that the media has reported on tons of kidnappings but when it was a member of their own industry whose life was at risk, they agreed not to report it. Were they not endangering the lives of all the other kidnapping victims?