It may seem anathema in the age of social media and access to the world’s newspapers via the internet, but the British media are still expected to follow strict government guidelines urging restraint when it comes to publishing the identity of hostages.
In the case of David Haines, the British aid worker captured and paraded on the latest video from the militant group Islamic State, this meant withholding a name yesterday, even though it was freely available on Twitter and international news websites.
The Foreign Office, which oversees the process, believes that in general in hostage cases, secrecy is the preferred option to maximise the chances of saving the individual at risk and to help the family at an incredibly difficult juncture.
It argues that media coverage is potentially dangerous for several reasons and it urges restraint of not only the name but also often the nationality as well.
There are fears that media interest in a named hostage can raise their profile. This could be misinterpreted by the hostage-takers, perhaps making them think they have a more valuable asset than previously realised.
Advertisement
Once an identity has been printed, media organisations would immediately search out biographical details. If these included any military background or religious beliefs, it could result in harm to the hostage.
It might also alert other groups, such as local branches of al-Qaeda. Someone who was kidnapped opportunistically by a tribe or a group could be passed into more dangerous hands, reducing their chances of survival.
In the case of Mr Haines, the Foreign Office conceded that there was no operational need to keep the name secret, given its availability on the internet, but requested it was not published at his family’s wishes. Yesterday it emerged that the family had reluctantly recognised that the name will appear in British newspapers after appearing in print and online around the world.