In cases of hijacking, kidnapping, hostage taking and sieges we must be aware that anything we broadcast or publish may be seen or heard by the perpetrators, both in the UK and overseas.

It is important that we report demands in context. We should also consider carefully the ethical issues raised by providing a platform to hijackers, kidnappers or hostage takers, especially if they make direct contact. We must remain in editorial control of the reporting of events and ensure that:

• we do not interview a perpetrator live on air.
• we do not broadcast any video and/or audio provided by a perpetrator live on air.
• we broadcast recordings made by perpetrators, whether of staged events, violent acts or their victims, only after referral to a senior editorial figure.
• we install a delay when broadcasting live material of sensitive stories, for example a school siege or plane hijack. This is particularly important when the outcome is unpredictable and we may record distressing material that is unsuitable for broadcast without careful editing.

When reporting stories relating to hijacking, kidnapping, hostage taking or sieges we must listen to advice from the police and other authorities about anything which, if reported, could exacerbate the situation. Occasionally they will ask us to withhold or even to include information. We will normally comply with a reasonable request, but we will not knowingly broadcast anything that is untrue. The police may even request a complete news black-out. The BBC procedure for dealing with such requests must be followed.

In listening to the Tulfo protestations concerning the actions of media members during the hostage crisis was reminded of this.

While this may be late to the discourse, I do not find the argument of media needing to report all sides of the story holds any water. And those journalists who continually try and shift focus and apportioning of responsibility away from media are doing a disservice to future coverage of hostage-taking.

This is no longer about the here and now, it is ensuring that situations such as this do not happen again. Protestations to the contrary and refusals to engage in self-analysis (for all parties) ensure that this will not be a one-off event; but something we may see again.

Entities which are cognizant of their responsibilities have clear-cut guidelines for coverage and journalistic integrity. They police themselves. Note that the above BBC guidelines lay out specific rules separate from what entities in authority request.

The words of Apolinario Mabini were not only targeted towards government or individuals; it is applicable to entities in positions of responsibility as well. Freedom is not the right to do as you please.

I am a staunch advocate of the freedom of the press. But freedom must be tempered with an understanding of responsibilities and effects of actions. My critiques of this specific incident should not be equated to a desire to abrogate the freedom of the press. Far from it. It is a hope that, as the press requests for government and politicians to engage in responsible decision making, so to should the press be a leader in this regard. As one of the deans of Philippine journalism said; the press can not only be a pillar of a free society, it can be one of the guiding lights for the future.

PS: This saving lives vs ‘keeping people informed’ is a BS line of thinking. The question is whether they should have been live with the guy in the first place, not if they were asking the right questions.

Of course they are not going to know what they say. They weren’t trained for this. Which is kind of the point.