In the days since we learned about New York Times reporter David Rohde’s escape from Taliban captivity, it’s also come out that at least forty news organizations knew of Rohde’s kidnapping. Well, make it forty-one. Some senior CJR staffers knew about about the situation and we kept it quiet, too. Times executive editor Bill Keller told us that the blackout was necessary to keep Rohde safe, but the decision has generated debate and discussion inside our newsroom and outside about just what is the threshold for withholding a story from the public.
Did the news organizations, including CJR, do the right thing in complying with the media blackout? At what point is such a blackout appropriate?
My initial rookie response was 'A blackout is appropriate when' lives are at risk. But they often are (even if it's a personal life or professional life), and there's still no blackout. I remember a UK blackout story I know which involves a PMs child. It was only blacked out as a personal favour.
So my second rookie (and cynical) response is 'A blackout is appropriate when' it's an inside job, and a working relationship may be threatened. Favour for a favour and all that.
#1 Posted by Verity, CJR on Wed 24 Jun 2009 at 11:54 AM
Clearly, according to journalists, a blackout is appropriate only when journalist lives are at risk. Everyone else -- politician or pauper -- is nowhere near as important.
Yes, Rohde's escape is great news. But the obvious double standard here should make every journalist cringe.
#2 Posted by Dan Gainor, CJR on Thu 25 Jun 2009 at 08:50 AM
It was interesting to see Christiane Amanpour say that if she is ever kidnapped, she wants it to be heavily publicized. Just shows how there really is no one right way to handle these things. I've never sat in a news meeting where this question had to be decided, so I don't know if there is actually a double-standard. But I do feel strongly that, leaving a bit of wiggle room for exceptions, whatever news value such a story has should be trumped by the effort to save lives--journalists' or anyone else. As we discussed this question here at CJR, several staff members argued that the principle at stake in the Rohde case was no different than the one involved in the decision to withhold the warrentless wiretapping story. In theory, they are right. In practice, I see a significant distinction between an abstract threat of "this could put lives in danger" and a situation where the gun is literally to the head of a captive.
#3 Posted by Brent Cunningham, CJR on Thu 25 Jun 2009 at 10:55 AM
One question, one question only: if it had been any other American would it have been reported?
Probably.
If it had been anyone in either of the recent administrations there on the job -- a congressman, Rumsfeld, a UN staffer -- and it was learned, would it have been reported?
If he was a no-bid contractor? A Feed the Children relief worker?
I'm with C. Amanpour -- tell the story. But if you're not going to tell the story--to deprive the Taliban of press, then don't tell it about anyone ... journalists look mightly clueless when valuing one of our own more than we would anyone else in the situation.
jmd
#4 Posted by Jeanne Devlin, CJR on Thu 25 Jun 2009 at 06:56 PM
The NY Times dropped names in the past few years knowing it jeopardized lives. The were begged to not run stories about some of our intelligence gathering that had already saved lives. Virtually any other news organization I would want to see the blackout if it was in the best interest of the person kidnapped, but not the NY Times. They should get what they give.
I agree with Ms Amanpour regarding herself because the more terrorists that know she's kidnapped the more can find her whereabouts and thank her for all her help.
#5 Posted by MikeM, CJR on Tue 30 Jun 2009 at 12:05 AM
It's nice that the media looks out for its own. Now if members would just do the same for the soldiers who actually defend and fight...
#6 Posted by C. Chumley, CJR on Sat 4 Jul 2009 at 01:44 PM
I believe the Times' editorial staff is up for the "Hypocrites of the Year" award.
#7 Posted by Stephen Byrne, CJR on Mon 6 Jul 2009 at 05:51 PM
As I understood it, one of the two men kidnapped with David Rohde stayed behind when he and the translator went over the wall. If the warning NYT observed related to the incident in which all three were taken, NYT seems to care not for letting it all hang out for that guy left behind (who was reported in some media to have switched sides). Their news report on the issue, and the Public Editor's analysis, didn't seem to touch on that issue.
#8 Posted by Frank Murray, CJR on Tue 7 Jul 2009 at 01:08 PM
I'm baffled that there is less talk in the journalism world about Rohde and how NYT handled the situation. I'm a younger journalist but that doesn't make me immune to the possible repercussions that our industry sidestepped. I am glad Rohde made it out alive. But, had this story come out a week earlier, we all would have had much public dismay to deal with. The MJ coverage has squelched that reaction. But, I believe the public would have made the connection. And, where are all the senior journalists on this one? If we're going to hold coverage of journalists, y'all need to make it a general policy for every person who is taken.
#9 Posted by Young, baffled reporter, CJR on Tue 7 Jul 2009 at 05:54 PM
I think stories shouldn't be blacked out for some and then for others. The NY Times says it had to do so to protect it's journalist, but past situtations have shown that you can't predict how kidnappers will react to media coverage.
#10 Posted by Frybread, CJR on Thu 9 Jul 2009 at 03:45 PM