http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/james_foley_steven_sotloff_media_blackout.php?page=allThe brutal murder of journalist James Foley and now Steven Sotloff in Syria has sparked disbelief and raw outrage. Now, a broader debate is opening about the role of the media in conflict zones: Are some stories just too dangerous for journalists to cover? Should governments pay ransom when reporters are kidnapped? How should the media cover terrorist propaganda like that surrounding the beheading of these journalists?
Answering these questions requires accurate and timely information from conflict zones, precisely the kind of thing journalists risk their lives to report.
But there is one story the media has not been covering fully, at least until recently. And that is the story of the kidnappings themselves. Under a practice known as a “media blackout,” news organizations have routinely suppressed information about the widespread abductions of journalists and others that have taken place in Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, and other countries around the world. The number of journalists kidnapped each year varies greatly from conflict to conflict, but there has never been anything like Syria. More than 80 journalists have been kidnapped since the conflict erupted in 2011.
As head of the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), I’ve been involved in far too many of these cases over the years. I’ve provided support from media organizations and families; I’ve participated in campaigns, both and public and private, to win the release of kidnapped reporters; and I’ve debriefed many journalists and media organizations about their experience.
Initially, I supported the use of media blackouts in selective cases. But more recently I have come to doubt that it is an effective strategy. The rationale behind blackouts is that they can save lives by facilitating hostage negotiations. But I have seen scant evidence to support this. Meanwhile, because the news is suppressed and sometimes never released, blackouts themselves stifle the public debate and undermine the media’s own credibility.
[...]
The above is from the Columbia Review of Journalism a month or so ago, but I've just read something similar in the Times - behind the Murdoch paywall unfortunately.
It also raises the question of how many more hostages are being held by Islamic State.
Edit: here's a link for the report from the Times:
Media ban did hostages no favours[...]
The parents of James Foley, the US journalist who was the first western hostage to be executed by Islamic State, voiced regret at their decision to go along with advice from the US government to keep quiet about their son’s captivity.
John Foley, the journalist’s father, said: “I don’t think it helped the captives. If we were silent we couldn’t engage the media to put pressure on people and governments to be more aggressive in their relief efforts.” He added that silence hindered the passing of potentially important information.
The brother of Alan Henning, a British hostage who was also killed, has criticised government advice on keeping silent during the nine months that the taxi driver was held captive.
“We’ve been gagged not to say a thing,” Reg Henning said.
[..]
Topic: Is it time to end media blackouts? (for kidnappings)