PressEthic

It’s a tough gig to be a reporter in a war zone. We are often reminded that reporters are not always seen as the neutral observers they hope to be. Instead, they are seen as potential targets for kidnapping or violence. In recent years, a number of American reporters have been kidnapped, and some have been killed, in the world’s hotspots. In each case, the fact that they were working journalists added to the media splash.

But in Monday’s New York Times, in a small article on A12, the captured reporter story has a slightly different angle. This time an A.P. photographer is being held by the U.S. military. The A.P. seems to think five months prison time with no charges is long enough.

(It was also published by the Boston Globe and CBS, among others)

The Times story, written by the A.P., appears to be an attempt to get exposure, and possibly put some pressure on the U.S. military. But it is also a news report.

“We want the rule of law to prevail,” said Tom Curley, the A.P.’s president and chief executive officer. “He either needs to be charged or released. Indefinite detention is not acceptable. We’ve come to the conclusion that this is unacceptable under Iraqi law, or Geneva Conventions, or any military procedure.”

In this case, the A.P. CEO is being quoted as a concerned employer. He’s not speaking as the representative of a news agency.

The photographer, Bilal Hussein, is an Iraqi citizen who has worked for the A.P. since Sept. 2004. The A.P. said its own review of Mr. Hussein’s work found nothing suspicious that would warrant his arrest.

After attempting to get info out of the military, the A.P. decided to go public.

The A.P. has worked quietly until now, believing that would be the best approach, Mr. Curley said. But with the American military giving no indication it would change its position, the A.P. decided to make public Mr. Hussein’s imprisonment, he said.

This story is a twist on the media’s usual job of reporting about things that happen to somebody else. So what is the A.P.’s role in this? It is both reporting the news and a subject of the story. Does having a stake in the story make it unethical for the A.P. to write about it? Should the news agency keep quiet and let Mr. Hussein’s case follow its course through the U.S. military’s prisoner regulations? Or does the perceived injustice against the photographer warrant exposing his plight?

The conservative Power Line blog thinks the A.P. should be ashamed that one of its photographers was colluding with terrorists. It has posted some of Hussein’s photographs (not all verifiably his) which it says clearly show that Hussein had a suspicious relationship with terrorists, and in fact, that some of his images serve to promote terrorist work.

Daniel Ruben, a blogger at the Philadelphia Inquirer, defends the A.P. saying that publicizing the case is not tantamount to advocacy.

What do you think?