I'm dismayed by Susan Turner's argument that there is no "moral justification" for keeping secret the kidnapping of Melissa Fung, and that it is "entirely egoistic." What other motive could there possibly be, than an entirely moralistic and unegoistic concern for a reporter's safety? If a media organization were driven by "egoism," surely it would exploit the headline-grabbing impact of her story. The fact that no organization DID exploit the story shows an admirable humanitarian consensus.

And it is wrong-headed to suggest that this was a breach of a "foundational reason for freedom of the press." It is an exercise of that very freedom to show restraint under the circumstances, when a headline could have imperiled a reporter's life, or complicated her release. Part of a journalist's code of ethics is to minimize harm--that's precisely what happened in this case.

See BlastFurnace for more discussion on this issue.

So far, I have heard no moral justification for the secrecy provided by anyone involved. Indeed, every story where attempts to defend the secrecy on the grounds of the consequences to Fung include 'news' about some other poor kidnap victim still in peril.

Like my mom used to say, "I mean, really!"
The secrecy was entirely egoistic (what John Stuart Mill called family egoism). The information was kept private and strictly confidential because anyone who blabbed would be finished.

It does no good to conclude based on fairness and a desire for good consequences, no kidnapped person should have any information about them made public until either the person is released or found dead. Almost impossible. And if achieved, freedom of the press would have lost all meaning.

The CBC has ignorantly breached a foundational reason for freedom of the press and what's worse, it has done so proudly almost arrogantly. This level of public press will not go away. But it will more and more serve interests less and less connected to the 'ground.'

I don't see this as all bad or even to be avoided. I'm more of a Marxist than that. But there is no doubt that the concept of a 'public'; what it is and where it is, is changing.

There need to be places where concerned individuals can go either physically or virtually and get the attention of most people. In very small towns, you can run up and down a few streets screaming and in a short time, everyone in town will be wanting you to explain. The press emerges to replicate that device when there are too many streets or no one is listening.

The Internet embryo with its blogs and other chatforms appears to be developing according to the same principle but it is not yet public or private or both. It is still none of the above.

I feel very concerned that I cannot trust CBC or any colluding news service quite as deeply as I did before. And I don't think the Internet is the place to turn for reliable reporting yet.

Where can this breach of professional duty by the CBC and all colluding news services and individuals be challenged with the same force they would challenge similar attempts to conceal?

Susan M Turner

There is a big difference between withholding a prisoner's sexual orientation and withholding news of their detention. I can't think of a parallel case of complete news blackout about a kidnapping and, unless another reporter is nabbed, I suspect I won't see one in the future either.

This seems to me clearly a case of the media favouring its own. Of course I'm glad it worked out for all concerned, but that doesn't make it the right choice unless we can conclude that media outlets have learned the value of silence in all cases like this - which is unlikely.

Journalists are often thin-skinned when it comes to criticism, often circle wagons when the spotlight is thrown on them and, in this case, appear to be guilty of applying a double standard to coverage. That doesn't do much for the profession's credibility outside the tight self-congratulatory circle which sees no problem with the behaviour.

Actually, the surprising thing is how few journalists have publicly questioned the embargo. Have there been any, apart from Ouimet? And yet, many hundreds of words in defence. This suggests that in private there's a lot of discussion, and perhaps not the same consensus that is being displayed publicly.

Perhaps we need to take a closer look at the word "embargo." When we respect embargoes offered by newsmakers, it's on the understanding that when the restriction is lifted we'll be able to produce a full, no-holds-barred account of the news. Yet in this case, it's not clear that the CBC intends to publish everything it knows about the affair, even with Fung's safety assured.

Certainly there are many inconsistencies in the accounts published so far, and there's room for much more real reporting about an incident that bears directly on the Canadian public interest.