Was the NYT wrong to conceal David Rohde’s kidnapping? Yes.
It’s been more than a week since New York Times reporter David Rohde escaped from his captors in Pakistan, so maybe now is a good time to try and look dispassionately at the massive coverup that prevented news of his kidnapping from being reported for more than six months — a coverup that included not just 40 or so mainstream media outlets but Wikipedia as well, with the personal help of founder Jimmy Wales. Raising such ethical issues seemed somewhat crass in the days following his miraculous escape (although that didn’t stop some observers, including Kelly McBride of the Poynter Institute, from being early critics of the coverup). But those issues deserve to be talked about in more detail.
For the record, I don’t know David Rohde. From all accounts, he is a wonderful friend and colleague, not to mention an excellent reporter who has a great deal of experience working in troubled areas. All of which is — I would argue — completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, namely whether the New York Times and its senior management were right to conceal evidence of his kidnapping, and whether the editors at dozens of other outlets were right to go along with this plan.
I would argue that they were not, and that if anything the coverup has made things harder not just for future kidnapping victims such as Rohde, but for newspapers and other mainstream media outlets as a whole.
The Times’ rationale for concealing the kidnapping, according to executive editor Bill Keller and columnist Nicholas Kristof), was that if Rohde was seen to be valuable — by virtue of being written about in the Western press — his kidnappers might kill him to make an example of him. This latter possibility might as well be known as the Daniel Pearl scenario, since that is what many observers believe sparked the beheading of the Wall Street Journal reporter in 2002. As Alan S. Murray, the Journal’s online executive editor, said in a response to me on Twitter following Rohde’s escape: “Went through this with Danny Pearl; human comes 1st.”
Is there a chance that Rohde would have been executed if the media hadn’t concealed his kidnapping? Perhaps. There’s always that risk with unstable terrorist groups, regardless of what negotiating tactics are pursued — and I would venture a guess that David Rohde knows that as well as anyone, since he has been kidnapped before. So did remaining silent about his fate save his life, as so many people have suggested since his escape? There’s no evidence whatsoever to support that, other than the emotional response felt by many of his fellow journalists, and in fact there is some evidence to suggest that all the kidnappers wanted was money.
As Kelly McBride has argued, employing what amounts to a sophisticated conspiracy to prevent news about Rohde from appearing publicly anywhere — including the fiercely independent Wikipedia — creates an obvious double standard. Journalists, including those at the New York Times and other media outlets, routinely report on people who have been kidnapped by terrorists, without any obvious qualms about how that reporting might or might not affect the chances that they might be released or escape. But when it is a journalist who is held, the process changes completely. That’s a clear case of favouritism, and it makes the entire industry look bad.
I read this expecting some new wrinkle of sophisticated analysis on this important and controverisal topic. (It emanates, after all, from Nieman.) But alas, no such luck.
“Did staying quiet save Rohde’s life? . . . There is no evidence whatsoever to support that. . .”
Uh, and none to suggest otherwise, either. (Unless you’re implying that the only acceptable level of proof is a dead body.) Then we come to this gem: “Is there a chance that Rohde would have been executed . . . there’s always that risk with unstable terrorist groups.”
Thanks for such penetrating insights into the complex, ethically-fraught, and often confused inner workings of a newsroom grappling with a reporter in harm’s way; with decisionmaking that is usually parceled out–at crosspurposes–among family, editors, security contractors, the government and the public. Thanks, too, for parting the curtains so effortlessly on such a fluid, fractious and murky rebel movement as the Taliban.
You should hire yourself out as a consultant on the next one.
I’m sorry if my analysis fell short of what you were expecting, Hildy. If you follow the links I included in the post, you will find that there is ample reason to believe Rohde’s kidnappers were only interested in money — something Rohde himself even suggested. So why is everyone talking about this coverup saving his life?
I realize that the decision to stay quiet was quite likely fraught with tension and competing interests, and I would not wish that kind of decision on anyone. I’m simply saying that I think the NYT — and everyone who agreed to stay quiet — came down on the wrong side of the issue.
Obviously, you disagree. But I think the question of how the NYT handled this situation is an important one, and worth talking about. Thanks for your comment.
Are you nuts? A person’s life was at stake here. That simply trumps the neat Marquess of Queensberry rules about ethics. You also seem to be wholly unaware of how major media organs sometimes report less than they know (though generally only after careful consideration), in the interest of keeping people alive, not compromising military plans, protecting the privacy of rape victims, and a host of other good, utterly definsible, reasons. Come on, readers expect way more from a site published by the Nieman Foundation.
Was David Rohde’s life at stake, John? That’s not at all clear, as I tried to point out in the post. And I realize that news organizations (the one I work for included) often delay or omit the reporting of certain details involving criminal acts, or agree not to disclose information involving national security.
That said, however, I can’t think of another case in which information about a specific individual — particularly a journalist — was withheld not just by a single newspaper but by dozens of them acting in concert, and not just for days or weeks but for six months.
That puts the Rohde case in a whole different ballpark, I would argue.
I was once kidnapped (Ecuador 1996); and that experience educated me about kidnapping and anti-kidnapping tactics. I found that my incident had been deliberately suppressed by (and from?) the major news outlets on the advise of several kidnapping response specialists. The news suppression ceased right after I was forcibly rescued 5 weeks later.
As my story clearly shows, reducing the publicity is a long-standard technique to help protect the lives of victims and reduce their apparent asset value during negotiations. Your comments reveal some lack of that insight and experience.
I suspect you also lack knowledge of just how much the media may have kept quiet about other kidnapping incidents that may or may not have involved journalists. As a personally pertinent example, I point out that since there was one brief AP report on my 1996 incident within the first 48 hours, and since I live within their distribution area, I suspect that the NY Times was also aware of my incident and chose not to publish it. Do you really know how often the media have kept quiet for a time about other dangerous situations until it was clear they would no longer put the lives of innocent victims in further danger? If not, you have little basis for claiming a “clear case of favouritism.”
If a kidnapping story becomes widely public, of course, as such incidents often do, then it no longer serves much purpose to avoid reporting on it. So such stories are hardly relevant counter-examples.
Mathew, I checked your bio only after posting my initial comment, so of course I quickly realized that you know all about the larger newsroom dynamics of these kinds of situations. But I think you’re failing to realize how the Daniel Pearl case probably changed a lot of thinking on this issue, and made people more likely to go to greater lengths to protect this reporter than may have happened in the past.
As for the issue of whether his life was at stake, hell, I would assume that when anyone is kidnapped anywhere, that possibility should immediately surface. And in a war zone? Doubly so. John makes an excellent point above, about how this has probably happened fairly often, though with far less visibility.
Thanks for the comment, John. You’re quite right, of course — I have never been kidnapped, so I don’t have the benefit of your personal experience. And it could well be that not reporting the facts about your kidnapping helped secure your release in some way, although I was under the impression that you were freed by Ecuadorian special forces.
In any case, a big part of my point is that a) this case was treated in a special manner because a journalist was involved, and b) it goes far beyond anything that was done in your case or any other in my memory, since it involved an unprecedented number of media outlets over a six-month period.
It was also, as far as I can gather, arguably unnecessary in the Rohde case, unless the intent was to try and reduce the amount of money the kidnappers were seeking as a ransom.
Mathew,
I think that “better safe than sorry” is the order of the day. Was this a double standard on the part of the NYT? In some cases, sure, it seems that way.
But so what? Is that the only “negative” consequence here? I really don’t think many people read the NYT article thinking, “Wow, the NYT put a human life ahead of avoiding a double standard, how dare they!”
This isn’t an episode of 24 where the choice is torture vs. a terrorist attack. We’re talking avoiding a double standard vs. incremental increase in saving a human being.
Hats off to the NYT for choosing to focus on a human being, no matter how little the evidence is in support of their choice having an effect.
Thanks for the comment, Bob. It’s not so much that the New York Times chose to focus on the human being this time — it’s that it has (and many other media outlets have) chosen the exact opposite many other times.
This hinges on whether principles (morality & ethics) are more important than lives? So yes – there are things that are worth dying for.
I would argue that withholding the news was abrogating principle to a greater degree than even paying a ransom would have been. Even if it had led to a death.
These kidnappers caused a whole society to go secret. Not good. Where is the democracy in that? For which principle incidentally, many soldiers & civilians are dying as I write.
How come one reporters life is supposed to be worth more than hundreds of US grunts & Afghan civilians?
I’m with Mathew Ingram on this.
The fact that the media has chosen the opposite course of action in other cases doesn’t mean their actions in this case were wrong. It could be that they are doing the wrong thing in those other cases. I think we need to make clear what exactly we are criticizing them for: Not reporting in this case or reporting in other cases? I think you can say they are doing the wrong thing when they report in other cases where publicity might’ve endangered the victim further, but I don’t think you can say they did the wrong thing by not reporting in this case. Also, were I to choose between hypocrisy and potentially contributing to someone’s death, I’ll pick hypocrisy every time.
I wrote more about this on my blog:
http://bit.ly/n0Wyn
And to respond to Nico’s comment, yes, there may be principles worth dying for, but that decision is up to each person. You can decide to put your principles ahead of your own life, but you have no right to put your principles ahead of someone else’s life.
Thanks for the comment, John. Just to be clear, I am criticizing the NYT — and the newspapers it convinced to remain quiet about the kidnapping — for what looks like a hypocritical approach to the issue. If it is a journalist, then the news is not reported, but if it is anyone else then seems to be fair game. Whether reporting or not reporting helps to keep kidnapping victims from being killed is a separate issue that I don’t really feel qualified to address in detail.
Is there a chance that Rohde would have been executed if the media hadn’t concealed his kidnapping? Perhaps.
Well, what the hell, eh?
Thanks for the comment, Dan. I realize that phrase makes me sound a lot more glib about the chances of someone dying than I meant to. My point was just that we can never know — there is always a chance. So why do the NYT and all the papers they convinced to stay quiet do so in some cases but not others?
Mathew, you provide an intriguing introduction to your argument:
“I would argue that they were not, and that if anything the coverup has made things harder not just for future kidnapping victims such as Rohde, but for newspapers and other mainstream media outlets as a whole.”
But the paragraphs that follow don’t address or support such a conclusion. They veer off into what I would classify as general criticism of the NY Times and media in general.
It would be interesting to hear your thoughts as to how clamping down on media coverage would endanger kidnapping victims in the future. If it did so, then the debate over the NY Times’ actions is certainly more interesting.
As it stands, The Times “coverup” either helped the situation or did not affect it materially. So at worst The Times stopped media coverage of a kidnapping that hardly qualifies as a compelling “public has the right to know” story. At best, they helped save Rohde’s life.
Or am I missing something?
All the best.
This is some of the most idiotic second-guessing I have ever seen. Some people believe that Daniel Pearle was murdered because he was famous. So, partly for that reason, the powers that be at the Times decided it was best to keep David Rhode as anonymous as possible. The only thing we know for sure here is that this strategy worked: Rhode was kept alive until he was able to escape. And that’s really all that matters. The only thing Mr. Ingram’s post makes clear is that he has absolutely no idea of what he’s talking about.
That’s a fair point, Doug. I didn’t really articulate that very well. I think the more often newspapers collude to suppress a story about a kidnapping, the more kidnappers will expect them to do that — potentially complicating an already complicated negotiation process. As far as the media are concerned, I think the fact that newspapers do this for journalists but not for non-journalists raises obvious questions about bias.
Thanks for the comment, Charles. I don’t know that it’s fair to say the strategy “worked,” since we have no way of knowing why Rohde’s captors kept him alive. It’s a little like saying you prayed for something to happen and then it happened, so your prayers “worked.” In any case, you didn’t really address my main point, which is the apparent discrepancy between how newspapers like the NYT treat kidnapping of journalists and how they treat kidnappings of non-journalists.
Matthew:
Here are some of the reasons your posting is mindless:
“Is there a chance that Rohde would have been executed if the media hadn’t concealed his kidnapping? Perhaps.”
If there is an iota of a chance that Rhode would have been executed if the media hadn’t concealed his kidnapping, it is obvious that the media did exactly what it should have done. Saving Rhode’s life was infinitely more important than your abstract concern that every kidnapping should be treated exactly the same way by the press(even though, of course, they never are.)That is why your “main point” is really no point at all.
“Was David Rohde’s life at stake, John? That’s not at all clear.” Journalism is all about making reasonable judgments. If you don’t think it’s reasonable to assume in these circumstances that Rhode’s life was at risk, you have no business being a journalist.
“That said, however, I can’t think of another case in which information about a specific individual — particularly a journalist — was withheld not just by a single newspaper but by dozens of them acting in concert, and not just for days or weeks but for six months.”
This is your idea of proof? The fact that you can’t think of another comparable case? How can you possibly know that there aren’t cases of journalists or non-journalists being held right now which aren’t being handled exactly the same way?
John Heidema’s comment and experience make it clear that your ignorance on the subject of kidnapping is nearly pristine, and you made NO EFFORT to learn ANYTHING about the subject before you wrote about it. As Heidema said,
“As my story clearly shows, reducing the publicity is a long-standard technique to help protect the lives of victims and reduce their apparent asset value during negotiations.”
If you didn’t know that, you had no business writing about this in the first place.
Charles, it seems obvious that for whatever reason you don’t want to have a reasonable discussion about this. I think there are good reasons to believe that Rohde’s life would not have been endangered by publicity, but obviously I don’t know that for sure. John’s case, meanwhile, is a single example, which is hardly conclusive.
You’ve also failed to address the main point, which is that if newspapers should always err on the side of caution and never report about a kidnapping if there is a chance that publicity will make things worse, then why do they routinely do the opposite, unless journalists are involved?
Insulting me or my abilities as a journalist may make you feel better in some way, but I’d rather hear a rational argument, if you have one.
You have presented no evidence that they “routinely do the opposite,” except when journalists are involved.
Charles, he can’t present any evidence that journalists “routinely do the opposite” because it’s not true. Some examples of the mainstream media withholding reporting details of kidnappings of non-journalists:
> In 1997, California media withheld reporting on the kidnapping of 7-year-old Matthew Simms for 18 hours, until he was safely rescued. “The reaction [of news editors] was very cooperative,” said Officer Jason Lee. “I stressed the point that the safety of the little kid is at stake.”
> Newspapers briefly withheld word of the 1974 kidnapping of Patricia Hearst.
> The NY Post held off reporting for a week on the 1997 kidnapping of businessman Harvey Weinstein at the request of NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly.
> This isn’t a kidnapping, but most of the world’s media refrained from reporting for months that Prince Harry was in Afghanistan, until the Drudge Report splashed the news on its homepage.
> And this goes back aways, but in 1954 the SF media withheld reporting on the kidnapping of businessman Leonard Moskovitz. “Not a line was printed, not a word spoken about the city’s most sensational crime in many years,” The Chronicle wrote later.
Derek, you can’t seriously be using an event from 1954 and the abduction of Patty Hearst to make your point, are you? Do you have any idea how many widely-reported kidnappings and abductions there have been since then?
Matthew — well, can you point to any cases in the past 60 years where the authorities, a kidnapping victim’s family or their company requested a news blackout and the media didn’t abide by their request? It just seems like a no-brainer to me, when you’re talking about a news blackout of limited duration and lives really at stake.
(Here’s a piece I wrote about this on my blog when people raised similar issues after the short-lived blackout of Jill Carroll’s kidnapping.
Here’s one I just came across, Derek — and I have no doubt I could find more quite easily: http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/537426 In that case, the Star reported on a kidnapping despite repeated pleas by the family. I also know of several cases in which diplomats and military personnel have been kidnapped and had that reported, despite requests from the military and the government not to do so.
I’m not sure it came out in your post Mathew but I do think the question as to whether or not there is a double standard for news organizations and their personnel vs. Joe whomever who gets kidnapped is an interesting one.
Would the NYT do the same thing for someone else? Or would they suggest that it’s their journalistic obligation regardless of the danger to the individual to report on such things.
Ummm, the case you cite isn’t a kidnapping — it’s an arrest by a sovereign state…
Reading these comments, it occurs to me that this post isn’t really advancing a serious discussion about journalism ethics. It’s mired in tactics.
On the one hand, Mr. Ingram accuses the Times of having double standards, and that’s a fair if sweeping criticism to raise, at least on an abstract level. But he stumbles badly trying to bolster his reasoning with the unique details of this case–principally by underplaying the threat to Rohde’s life. (The ‘kidnappers only wanted money’ argument.) Truth is, any journalist or soldier with real-world experience in such lawless regions as Afghanistan, Somalia or Iraq knows that ‘mere’ demands for money do not in the remotest sense translate into lesser dangers for the captives. In the past, abductees have been ‘traded up’ to more murderous, radical factions unless ransoms are met: monetary haggling in effect becomes a death sentence for the prisoners. And even bumping up the value of the ransom itself can be fatal, because the actual release operation, if and when it actually occurs, tends to be an explosive, potentially lethal affair bristling with guns, again because so much money is involved. So money = less danger is a red herring. With all due respect to Mr. Ingram, he weakens his own case by being uninformed about such matters. (Ethicist Kelly McBride’s argument–that some information should have been leaked out over time, in a controlled way–also strikes me as remarkably naive; since when can cats be allowed only partly out of the bag?)
The far more interesting–and maybe unanswerable–question here is strategic: Should journalists who are abducted (that is, non-combatants, private citizens, who are working for private media companies) be covered in the exact same fashion as abducted soldiers or intelligence agents (combatants, and representatives of our government at war)? If so, what should this universal reporting policy be? (After 10 days, all news blackouts aren’t binding? Really?) Can such guidelines even be crafted, given the radically different particulars of each kidnapping case? And, finally, if journalists who are doing their jobs deserve no special treatment whatsoever–and I can see this argument as valid–why stop at news blackouts? Why not not extend that anti-elitist position to things such as shield laws, too?
Derek, you are quite right about that Star case — it was not a kidnapping but an arrest. However, the same issues apply, it seems to me.
And Hildy, your point about monetary demands not necessarily lessening the danger is a good one. Ultimately it’s impossible to know for sure what the kidnappers were after, or what they might have done if David had not escaped.
It’s obvious that many people would rather err on the side of protecting kidnap victims, and that may well be the best approach to take — I’m simply saying that if it is the best approach then it should be taken in all cases, not only those involving journalists.
The questions you raise are also good ones, and deserve to be thought about and debated as well.
Mathew,
Yeah, but an arrest by a sovereign state on its own territory certainly has a veneer of authority that a kidnapping by bandits lacks.
As a journalist I think we’d be really going down a slippery slope if we started suppressing news of arrests — of either journalists or non-journalists.
I mean in the Star case you cite at most one life could be saved. But you could argue that many more would be saved if the news media, say, didn’t report news that jeopardized U.S. foreign policy objectives re: Iran…
Maybe that is just a good argument that we should never withhold news and just report the facts. I’m not sure. But I certainly think — and I think most if not all members of the media would agree — that any courtesies extended to reporters on this should also be extended to members of the general public…
Mathew, I agree with your point about hypocrisy. While I don’t have a problem with The New York Times not reporting the matter for the safety of its journalist, it should make the same call when it comes to other kidnapping victims, whose lives may be equally in danger. In an age of declining newspaper readership, newspapers should not treat readers as a discrete group at odds with them; instead, they need to be on the same side as the reader to win our trust.