The ombudsman at The Scotsman, Ian Stewart, has explained to readers how the paper came to make an unfortunate error, How secrecy over hostages needlessly added to one family's distress. The circumstances that led to the mistake, he wrote, "are unique in my journalistic experience."
His explanation raises interesting questions about the problems newspapers face when reporting matters of genuine public interest while trying to comply with official requests for restraint in the face of (arguably) unnecessary secrecy.
The Scotsman carried a story on July 21 about a British man held captive in Iraq (with four other Britons) having killed himself, Suicide claim over Scots hostage in Iraq. (The Guardian also carried the story here). The man was identified in The Scotsman's article as "Jason, a private security contractor from Aberdeen." In fact, the man who had died was a different hostage, also called Jason, from Wales.
The paper duly carried an apology at the distress caused to the family of Jason from Scotland. But Stewart argues that the mistake need never have happened. Here's what he wrote:
At the request of the Foreign Office the four men have not been identified - well, not fully. We know one is called Alan from Dumbarton. We know he has a wife and two children, one aged three, the other 14. There has been a picture of Alan published holding his newborn son.
Two of the men have the same name, Jason; one is from Scotland and one from Wales. There is video of the Jason from Wales that was released by his captors. The fourth is Alec MacLaughlan, 28, a former paratrooper from Llanelli. We know he has a young son.
We have had family members of the men appear in television interviews appealing for their release and complaining not enough is being done to secure their freedom.
The Foreign Office have asked that their full identities are not revealed, saying that information might "endanger the hostages". It also said "extensive coverage can clearly cause distress to the families".
In our report of the hostage said to have taken his own life, we identified the deceased as the Jason from Scotland, as did many other media outlets. Information on the Sunday (the story was published on Monday) was very hard to confirm.
We were told on Monday that, in fact, it was the other Jason the story referred to, and that the family of the Scottish Jason had been greatly upset by the reports, including ours.
Of course, we carried a correction and an apology. But here we had a situation where distress to a family had been caused by the bizarre identification situation and a lack of communication. The very thing the Foreign Office is said to be seeking to avoid.
Let's be clear. The safety of the hostages is paramount - no doubt about that. And nobody wants to inflict more upset on the families. And I am not arguing that the identities of the hostages should be revealed. (Some cynics might accuse me of operating out of self-interest because that would be better for us in story terms - nothing could be further from the truth).
We do not know the reasons behind the Foreign Office stance. We have to trust their judgment and we do not have the information to take the view it is wrong.
However, it should take a long, hard look at where benefits and drawbacks now lie. So much is now known about the men - are we really keeping anything from the kidnappers? How does that balance against a more high-profile appeal for their release?
The FO may take the view it can do nothing about the information already in the public domain. However, there has to be a realisation that the limited information that is in the public domain can - and has - caused confusion and led to harmful errors.
If it truly is the FO's wish to avoid added distress to the families, there has to be far clearer communication with the media.
I think Stewart has a point, a very good point. The value of a news blackout in this case is surely debatable because there is so much information already known about the men. After all, one appeared on a video that was broadcast on television last December.
I wonder whether the families of the men, who were taken hostage in May last year by a Shia group, are happy about the press clamp. Some relatives have expressed concern that not enough is happening in (alleged) behind-the-scenes activities.
After 14 months, it's fair to ask whether publicity might now be more helpful in gaining their release than silence. And just a little more FO candour with journalists might help prevent additional distress being caused to families who must be consumed with worry every day.
.png?w=600)
