Text is not Dead

Many have chimed in over the stance the Hartford Courant took in the hostage situation July 7, 2009. A former advertising executive kidnapped his ex-wife shortly after their divorce was final. He held her hostage in their home for many hours and made several demands. Among them was that all media outlets remove coverage of him, no pictures, no articles, no updates. The Police carried this message to WFSB , The Day of New London, and The Hartford Courant, an outlet that had already posted the story. The message was remove the story or he would blow up the house. The Hartford Courant did not comply.

The wife eventually escaped, and the only casualty in the situation was the house, which he set on fire. However, the debate over the Courant’s actions carries on. To better understand the nature of negotiating in a hostage situation, I went to Dominick Misino’s book, Negotiate and Win: proven strategies from NYPD’s top hostage negotiator. Essentially, he explains the careful development of trust. The kidnapper must trust the authorities because, after all, he is as concerned over his life as the Police are for the hostage. The negotiator is starting from a trust level of 0%. A successful negotiation requires that small requests be met to grow the trust. The process is arduous and requires judgment in how to comply with the kidnapper, but the trust level must be at least 51% to ensure the safety of the hostage.

Following this logic, one may conclude that the safest decision would be to remove the article. However, another side could argue that giving a kidnaper what he asks does not necessarily guarantee the hostage’s life but the likelihood that the demands will increase. In a statement the following day, the paper responded that “The information given to us was incomplete and the level of imminent danger unclear.” The Hartford Courant letting the article stand calls into question the ethics of this particular publication. If they had done what the Police asked, given into this specific demand, would the kidnaper have turned over his hostage? Did he ever intend to kill her? What would have happened if hadn’t escaped? And, would the decision of the Courant have had a much different impact? CJR rises above the “what if” and brings to light the central issue of the responsibility of the media.

There is disagreement on all these points, but we believe that journalists do bear some responsibility for the consequences of the stories they publish. Freedom of the press comes with obligations. Adopting an absolutist perspective, in which the right to publish factual material renders other concerns immaterial, is simply a way to avoid grappling with the hard choices those obligations give rise to.

I completely agree. I understand and admire the integrity of journalism, when it exists; however, when a life is at stake, the importance of informing the public and pushing that story pales in comparison. Putting these types of priorities in order is what helps to maintain the media’s integrity, not demonstrating that the story trumps the people involved in it.