Will Blackout on Abducted Reporter Draw Critique?

By: Joe Strupp It might have been the best kept secret in foreign news, the abduction of David Rohde of The New York Times. The 41-year-old foreign correspondent was kidnapped on Nov. 10, 2008 near Kabul, Afghanistan, along with a driver and local reporter.

But you didn?t hear about it for the past seven months, in the Times or any other mainstream news outlet. That is because Times editors sought what amounted to a news blackout, citing Rohde?s safety.

Only a handful of Web sites and blogs--for more than half a year -- noted the incident, it remained out of mainstream news. It appears other news outlets that knew of the abduction adhered to the Times? request.

Even when the Times won five Pulitzer Prizes in April, including one for international reporting in Pakistan and Afghanistan that essentially honored Rohde among others, the paper had to bite its collective lip.

When E&P became aware of the kidnapping several months ago, Editor Greg Mitchell and I discussed the issue on several occasions, but declined to report. We talked to journalism ethicists and editors or reporters at other top outlets for guidance. When approached about the matter, several Times editors, including Executive Editor Bill Keller, were candid (off the record) about the situation, but with a request that we maintain a blackout.

We did. As Keller said today on the Times? Web site, the paramount importance was for Rohde?s life and the belief among those aiding the paper, and his family, was that publicity could do more harm than good. "We decided to respect that advice, as we have in other kidnapping cases, and a number of other news organizations that learned of David?s plight have done the same. We are enormously grateful for their support," he said in the story today.

It appears that Rohde?s freedom came through an escape and not any dealing for ransom or any other exchange that might have been proposed by his kidnappers. It is well known among foreign correspondents that they are often targets for kidnappers, with many seeking (and sometimes getting) cash.

But the entire ordeal and the secrecy surrounding it raises the larger question of when news outlets should keep news from the public or not. The Times, interestingly, has in the past held off or delayed reporting news at the request of government officials, including the last Bush Administration.

Three years ago, a similar incident occurred with the kidnapping of reporter Jill Carroll of the Christian Science Monitor. Captured in Iraq in January 2006, Carroll?s abduction was the subject of a news blackout for at least 48 hours with several major newspapers agreeing to keep it quiet. Carroll was eventually released some 88 days later.

But even with Rohde?s escape and the success the Times had in keeping his abduction quiet, it sparks questions about the ethical ramifications of such a move, and the success. Would publicity have helped the effort, or harmed him in the end? Were media bending over backward to help a fellow journalist when they might not have done the same for any other citizen?

Back in 2002, Daniel Pearl of The Wall Street Journal was famously kidnapped in Pakistan and video of him was sent worldwide in a very public effort to seek attention.

In his case, however, it ended tragically of course with his death via beheading, also caught on a gruesome tape.

In the end, as the story of Rohde unfolds, the question of when and how to report, or not report, such serious incidents, especially when a news outlet itself is a major part, will remain a difficult one. The fact that he survived and got away safety, amid the blackout, gives one more argument to the side of keeping some news quiet.

To some news purists, it may be a bit of a difficult thing to stomach -- and for those who already have a cynical view of news outlets as places that report only what pleases them, another example to point to.

Or maybe the happy ending will still any doubts.