Since I was up early and could no longer resume sleep (domestic issues that I’m discovering I don’t have the patience or temperament for, long story), I decided to look up entries related to the kidnap for ransom of Ces Drilon and members of her crew Jimmy Encarnacion and Angelo Valderama.
I first read up on Daniel Pearl, the American journalist who was kidnapped and beheaded in Karachi, Pakistan to try to see what happened and how this particular situation ended. I would have wanted to watch “A Mighty Heart” but I don’t think I can knowingly watch such an emotional film right now. And ditto for the video of his death released by his kidnappers.
Pearl, an editor for the Wall Street Journal based in India, was kidnapped en route to an interview with a person suspected of having ties with the shoe bomber and Al Qaeda. The kidnappers sent a list of demands. The U.S. government didn’t give in, they murdered Pearl by beheading.
Pearl was murdered in a gruesome fashion, with his body chopped up into several parts and thrown into a shallow grave. Also, his captors made a big deal about his Jewish heritage. His was a complex case of how world politics interconnect and how he became the scapegoat for a whole lot of political and ideological issues.
Then, I hopped on to poynter.org and searched for “newsroom” and “Iraq” online. I got an interesting opinion piece, “Journalism continues to be a risky occupation” by Julie M. Moos. Points pertinent to the Drilon situation are the following:
“Journalists are no longer seen by others as objective … The cover of neutrality has been blown away now, and the combatants and guerrillas see them as on one side or the other.”
If journalists feel increasingly targeted because of their profession, that may be because they are. Particularly if they are American.
“The rest of the world knows how to get attention,” Scherer says. “Targeting a journalist will get attention because journalists give attention to each other.”
***
It is not the international press that faces the greatest danger, Simon says, it is the local media who live where the conflict is raging and don’t have access to the same training or equipment that U.S. journalists have.
***
Whether you were in New York on Sept. 11, Iraq in 2003, or covering events elsewhere, wherever you cover local news — in Algeria, the deadliest country for journalists in the last decade, or in Alger, Ohio — there is a risk. And as we look ahead, we honor all who are willing to take it.
Another article by Bill Kirtz in celebration of Daniel Pearl’s death anniversary also raises some key points that explain journalistic motivation:
Increased danger is part of a foreign correspondent’s territory, three reporters agreed. Noting that the rules have changed — that reporters are now seen more as political pawns than as objective reporters — journalists on a Harvard panel said there’s no foolproof way to make the right safety decision. Their comments marked the first anniversary of the day Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl’s murder was revealed.
Larry Ingrassia, a Journal editor who had been Pearl’s London bureau chief, said that despite “a lot of soul-searching” over the reporter’s kidnapping in Pakistan, “The fact is that it could have happened to a lot of journalists. It’s hard to figure out what ’safe’ is now. I’m struck by the courage of reporters who keep going despite the fact that the rules have changed. I fear (deaths) are part of the turf.”
Baltimore Sun correspondent Frank Langfitt said the old rules meant that warring factions in even the most dangerous conflicts saw reporters as valuable messengers through which they could transmit their views. But “now, we’re seen as either political pawns or the enemy,” and the “Don’t Shoot! I’m a Journalist” T-shirts he used to see in El Salvador can bring wearers more risk than relief.
***
“You’re working very, very fast juggling (both) risks and the story,” he said.
“I don’t like danger at all, but the story’s enormously attractive,” he added.
To reduce risks, he tells his translators that part of their job is security, to warn him if crowd conversations indicate increased danger. In such cases, he’l beat a hasty retreat.
Boston Globe reporter Anne Barnard, who will soon join a U.S. Air Force unit in Qatar, noted that her sources in Pakistan see her and colleagues as government tools.
Ingrassia said the Journal warns its reporters to avoid excessive risks, something the other panelists reiterated their editors told them.
But, said Barnard, “They sure want the story when The New York Times has it.”
Afterwards, I made my way to Warrior Lawyer’s blog and read his post on the issue. Points of note include:
- Kidnap for ransom is a political tool to intimidate governments.
- Kidnap for ransom by Abu Sayyaf is a way for them to generate funds.
- But as to whether the network would pay ransom, I think the historical precedents are clear. The only sure way to effect the safe release of the captives would be to pay ransom. Attempts at rescue are often unsuccessful and, even if successful, result in the deaths of some of their victims, like what happened to Martin Burnham and Ediborah Yap. The network, and its emissaries, will of course vehemently deny even considering ransom. The kidnappers know this, and captors and negotiators alike will dance around the subject, but in the end it will come down to how much will be paid to secure Ms. Drilon’s and her companions’ freedom. It won’t be called ransom, but some other face-saving euphemism, like “board and lodging fee”. Note that while the official ABS-CBN statement eschews ransom, it makes no mention of any refusal to make some other form of payment.
- One last point on why I believe ransom will be paid. Local officials, including the military and police, are widely rumored to be in collusion with the Abu Sayyaf and other rebel groups. This was alluded to by Gracia Burnham in her book “ In the Presence of my Enemies”. Those who are supposed to be leading the search and rescue operations are most eager to negotiate in behalf of the victims. They seem to have reached a sinister symbiotic relationship with the bandits. In exchange for a cut of the action, they allow the Abu Sayyaf to continue their nefarious undertakings. These include the so-called “legitimate” rebel groups like the MNLF and MILF, who have been accused of aiding the ASG. The Abu Sayyaf should have been crushed long ago. Instead, it is once again in the news and on the verge of cashing in on its core competency, kidnapping.
My final stop was this article on ABS-CBN news online that stated that the Sayyafs have kidnapped a total of 20 journalists since 2000! How’s that for quota? The lead paragraph says the whole point I was making of knowingly going for a story despite risks:
Since the Abu Sayyaf gained worldwide notoriety for its acts of terrorism—bombing and kidnapping for ransom, especially—since the late ’90s, there must have been over a hundred journalists, local and foreign, who went into the forests of Sulu and Basilan and risked the dangers to get a story.
Food for thought.
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 12, 2008 at 5:38 pm
the warrior lawyer
Thanks for linking me, Amee. No problem about quoting from my post.
Interesting points made on the articles quoted by you, though. The protagonists on both sides now doubt the neutrality of journalists and look at them as political pawns. My impression is that it’s a matter of professional pride on the part of reporters that they remain above the fray and look with a dispassionate eye on events. What could account for this change in perception on the part of the public ?
And the quote on being aware of the danger yet finding the story enormously attractive is so true. Like moth to a flame, to use a worn cliche. I wonder if this was the case with Ces Drilon. She knew it was dangerous but the pull of the story, the potential scoop, was just so hard to resist. The adrenaline rush must be addictive.
June 12, 2008 at 8:15 pm
coffeewithamee
Hi Warrior Lawyer.
I think the age of the “objective” journalist has long expired. Even theory that goes back to the Greeks that is used to analyze literature and culture state that there’s no such thing as objective, there’s always an agenda to everything. What one aspires to, as a journalist, is to give as much balance as one possibly can.
I was just reading up on the history of journalism in the U.S. and the main point made there was that tabloid journalism changed how reports were done especially in broadcast news. We now have the personality, the personal experience, and the side of the issue that dominates rather than the simple who, what when, where and why (and these Ws in their element are also rather un-objective because they involve a choice of which of them is more important).
Regarding attraction. It is indeed like moth to a flame. You know it’s dangerous but you can’t help yourself. And yes, once you get a story, especially a scoop that no one else gets, the adrenaline rush is one that is incomparable.