New York Times reporter David Rohde escaped from his kidnappers in Afghanistan and Pakistan more than a week ago after being held for seven months, and there are now rumblings in media-criticism circles bashing the NYT and about 40 other media outlets, as well as Wikipedia, for covering up news about the kidnapping for that whole time while negotiations for Rohde’s release were ongoing. The media’s justification for the cover-up was that publicizing the kidnapping might’ve put Rohde’s life at greater risk. The criticisms I’ve read generally go like this: The media usually report on kidnappings. In this case, however, because a journalist — one of their own — was the victim, they kept it quiet. It’s favoritism/double standard/hypocrisy.

My response: Yes, you can absolutely build a strong argument that the media were hypocrites in this case. And you know what? That would have ZERO impact on whether I think the media did the right thing here.

The way I see it, a life was potentially at stake, and you do whatever it takes, short of endangering another life, to save that person. If that means reporting the heck out of the kidnapping, then report it like mad. If it means keeping the kidnapping out of the news, then keep it out. If it means quoting unverified, anonymous sources, then quote them. If it means publishing flat-out lies in your publication or on your Web site, then I’ll write the lies myself.

The holiest of your own holy journalistic principles don’t amount to squat when weighed against someone else’s life. The media critic who suggests otherwise has lost perspective. Is hypocrisy a bad thing? Usually. Is hypocrisy the wrong choice when the alternative is the potential loss of a life? No. And I’ve yet to see any evidence persuasive enough to sell me on the suggestion that publicizing the kidnapping definitely would NOT have made it more difficult to obtain Rohde’s release and put him in greater danger. Until such evidence surfaces, I think the media did the right thing in this case.

Now, let’s address the double-standard issue:

• One can definitely argue that the media seems to have used a different standard in this case, and we can all agree that it is hypocritical to have two standards.
• That brings us to the question: Which of the two standards is the right one? What should the media do in cases where publicity might further endanger the victim?
• I would say it’s the one that minimizes risk to the victim — which means not reporting on the kidnapping.
• That being the case, the way to remedy the hypocrisy is to always do the right thing — to not report the kidnapping in such cases.
• The Rohde situation being one such case, one cannot say the media did the wrong thing in not reporting it.
• So if you want to criticize the media, criticize them for reporting on other such cases, but not for not reporting on this case.