Drilon Kidnapping: A Case of Gauging Risks for a Story

By Alan Davis
IWPR Director of Special Projects

MANILA, Philippines — Any blog on the June 8 Sulu kidnapping of the ABS CBN news team and their ‘fixer’ Professor Octavio Dinampo has to begin with a wish for the safe and speedy release of the remaining captives. At the back of many media professionals is the sense of, ‘there but for the grace of God…’

Over the past few days I have pondered hard on whether now is a suitable time to write a piece on safety and security of journalists in such situations. It is a matter for debate to be sure — yet I think the answer has to be ‘yes’ if it gets just one journalist to carefully consider when the risk of following a story outweighs the benefit of securing a story. Time spent on good risk assessment is never wasted and I encourage those who have not done any formal safety training to click on the project’s safety and security pages.

Meantime amid the column inches published so far on the kidnapping, the June 13 editorial and cartoon in the Philippine Daily Inquirer are well worth reflecting upon.

The cartoon which shows a TV crew interviewing a shadowy gunman in the jungle and inside the huge jaws of a menacing head labeled Abu Sayyaf should be cut out and pinned on every newsroom notice-board – perfectly summarizing as it does, the risks journalists face every time they seek face to face interviews with insurgents and/or bandits.

Everybody loves the idea of a scoop and an exclusive. Live pictures are much more dramatic and sell much easier than words. But as the cartoon demonstrates, journalists walk into potential traps every time they try and meet up with people who by their very actions will be hidden and hard to locate or track down.

A cartoon previously in I think the Philippine Star had the Abu Sayyaf camp as a spider’s lair. True enough.

Of course risks are all part of the business we are in. But as the security consultants who train journalists on hostile environment courses tell us — risks must be known, measured and manageable. Journalists must remain in control of their own movements and decisions and avoid delegating their own security to others.

For sure this is sometimes much easier said than done, and we have probably all done things that in retrospect seemed foolhardy. I have for sure and remember well the sleepless night I had before taking the fast boat to Basilan.

The line between getting into serious trouble and getting back home with a good experience and story is a very fine one. Usually too it is invisible and you never know if you have crossed it until it is too late.

Another thing that safety training teaches us is that there are no leaders and no followers when it comes to your own personal security. Individuals are autonomous and there should never be any pressure to ‘go along’ because colleagues or competitors are. There is no shame in staying out of harm’s way.

At the same time it is right and proper to salute those who keep us informed from difficult and dangerous areas.

In such cases, where there is an overriding and agreed reason and need to interview ‘outlaws’ or people who are fighting under a certain flag, cause or ideology, we must find safer ways of doing it. The more extreme the ideology, the more caution needs to be applied.

In southern Afghanistan, where my IWPR colleagues work to develop the capacity of local media to serve society, we encourage our local trainees to contact the Taliban by phone where there is a compelling reason to secure a quote from them and which does not give them undue platform or any opportunity to propagandize.

The ABS CBN crew was criticized for not liaising with the military upon arrival in Jolo –but journalists should always remain wary in such instances in case they are used as ‘bait’. Equally and much more so we need to be very, very careful in dealing with groups with no known agenda beyond that of sowing fear and terror. In general – though not always – it is usually safer to cover groups with political or territorial positions. People who called themselves The Sword of God (Abu Sayyaf) are obviously driven by a religious ideology that suggests they should only ever be approached with extra special care.

The Inquirer editorial makes several more good points – the first of which is to be continually suspicious of offers or opportunities to interview groups or individuals beyond reach as it will invariably mean you going to them. If something doesn’t seem right, don’t do it.

The second is that we shouldn’t allow anybody or any group or official to accuse somebody or blacken their name without just cause. In this case, the PNP seem to be questioning the motives of Professor Dinampo. But as the law teaches us all, people are innocent, until…

The Philippine Human Rights Reporting Project only very recently published a story on Sulu which tried to show a balanced picture of what is happening there: an island with a great many problems and pressures and the image people have of it is of terror and conflict – not education or development which is also ongoing there.

Sadly the kidnapping will just reaffirm the negative picture most people have of Sulu. We should not though let a small band of kidnappers stigmatize an entire community or people.

Ultimately, as well as our prayers, the ABS CBN team and their fixer deserve credit for keeping focus on a story and going where the story is to see for themselves and not simply reporting from Manila and helping perpetuate stereotypes through ignorance. The day Sulu or any other place becomes a no-go zone for journalists will be a black day indeed.

That said, while ordinary people and critical issues and challenges deserve the oxygen of publicity always, we should also ask whether the same applies to a renowned group of kidnappers.