There’s been a lot of back-and-forth this week about the role of publicity in helping or hurting the case of a kidnap victim. When David Rohde (pictured above interviewing the Taliban, photo: Reuters) escaped from the Taliban and waltzed into the spotlight last weekend, many supported the prevailing media blackout that his employer, the New York Times, has requested regarding the case. There has been quite a bit of speculation that the Times may have even kept mum because it was attempting to blackmail or bribe the Taliban kidnappers.
The press had some interesting comments about the matter this week. The Christian Science Monitor has highlighted the fact that there are no fast and steady rules about such strategies on the part of the press. At Canada’s National Post, one columnist suggests there are double standards in place about media blackouts on current hostage crises. And over at National Public Radio, a journalism ethics professor expressed worry about how much else the press was withholding. Finally, former hostage Colin Freeman weighs in with the thought that information blackouts may be necessary to protect hostages from becoming even hotter commodities.
