MANILA, Philippines—Most of the Metro Manila news media knew of the abduction of TV journalist Ces Oreña Drilon and two of her crew in early Monday morning, a day after their abduction, allegedly by the Abu Sayyaf last Sunday afternoon in Sulu province.
The state-owned TV channel NBN-4 broke the story in its Monday evening news broadcast, making the abduction public knowledge. It was followed by a statement by Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye, who said, “We appeal for caution and restraint in media reportage (so) as not to unduly hamper efforts to rescue them.”
At the time of the statement, there were no rescue “efforts” under way. Government security forces were as stunned by the abduction as the public and the media, so much so that they were immobilized. In this state of paralysis, the government appeared to be trying to score points with the public over its impotence to make Sulu safe not only for journalists but more so for visitors.
The appeal to the media for “restraint” was superfluous. It was trumped by the fact that most of the media embargoed the story for a day to avert putting the lives of the hostages at risk because of premature reporting.
The Philippine Daily Inquirer, together with The Philippine Star and Manila Bulletin—the newspapers with the largest circulations—and GMA-7 TV-radio network temporarily withheld the story until Tuesday morning’s edition, following an appeal from ABS-CBN Broadcasting, Drilon’s network, to hold the story temporarily. ABS-CBN news and current affairs head Maria Ressa appealed for a news blackout on the kidnapping until 6 a.m. Tuesday, so as not to jeopardize the safety of Drilon and her crew, Jimmy Encarnacion and Angelo Valderama, while negotiations were under way for their release. At that time (Monday), ABS-CBN said “we did not know what their situation was. We didn’t want to speculate on any information that would jeopardize their safety.”
The Inquirer editors decided to hold the story just for one day “in deference to the safety of Ces Drilon and her crew.” The news blackout received the support of the National Union of Journalists which said that “If that story came out it might have angered the abductors and the captives could have been harmed.” The blackout appeal this time came from the media groups themselves, and not from the authorities which normally seek blackouts on stories concerning disturbances of public order (such as rioting and coup attempts). Authorities make the appeal usually in the form of coercive measures, such as arrests of journalists breaking police lines set up to block off crime zones and areas of public disturbances.
News blackouts are usually anathema to the media, which regard them as censorship. In this context, it comes as no surprise that the media were divided on the embargo on the Drilon abduction. One dissent came from media critic, veteran journalist Vergel Santos. He criticized the blackout as “actually an attempt to manage the news.” He said, “it was a sensitive story but public interest was already there. It should not have been managed.” He said publishing the story should have alerted people in Sulu of what was really happening. He said “people there can be lulled into a false sense of security,” adding that the “complete story had to be given to cover all possibilities and lessen speculation.” At that stage, the story was evolving and facts had not crystallized. How could a “complete story” be told on the basis of sketchy and still developing events?
If I were the editor facing such a request, I would have found it reasonable to agree to the embargo primarily on the grounds that human lives were at risk from premature publicity. Public security and national interest would have not been harmed by a one-day embargo that denied the public only tentative information. At that stage, the primary concern was the safety of the hostages, not because journalists are special citizens who can claim preferential protection. The publication could not have jeopardized police rescue operations, since these were non-existent.
Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita seems to have blamed Drilon and her crew for ignoring security precautions in covering dangerous areas for “an exclusive story,” thereby, setting themselves up as “convenient victims” of abduction. He said had the news team “coordinated with the military and police, I’m sure the military and police in the area would have said that they can provide security up to a certain point.” He said Drilon and her team “avoided being accompanied by authorities so it became very convenient for kidnappers to do what they did.” He said since Sulu and Basilan were “danger areas,” it was “usual practice” to inform local officials and security forces “about the purpose of their being there.” In turning down last Saturday an offer by Col. Eugene Clemen, commander of the third brigade in Mindanao, to provide her with security, Drilon was fully aware that the military was a hindrance to her confidential project and attracted distrust from outlaw groups that had staged abductions in the region since January 2002 (the hostage-taking of American missionaries Martin and Gracia Burnham by the Abu Sayyaf).
Drilon and her crew took extraordinary risks to explore a good story and were aware of these. It is reasonable to presume that they knew they could not rely on the security forces to ensure their safety. The sight or the hint of security forces being involved in their project would have aroused suspicion among the outlaws they sought to interview. The involvement with security forces would have doomed their project, which was based on mutual trust. Worse, it would have cost their lives.
