Hostages

Last weekend, a major TV network Senior reporter, her two cameramen and a professor were being held hostages by a still unconfirmed group of muslim rebels. Reportedly, they went there without the knowledge of military and police authorities who has that province in their area of responsibility in Mindanao. Unlike their previous sorties in that war torn province, they kept their mission in secret ostensibly to make an exclusive interview of those rebels expecting to out-scoop their rival network. On the second day of their activity, the news was in the papers, broad sheet and tabloid alike, in tv and radio broadcasts except the reporters own network. Apparently, they want to deny their reporters captivity as much as they could to prevent the exposure of their folly. When this can’t be prevented anymore, they acknowledge the news report and pleaded with other media network not to exploit the situation so as not to jeopardized the safety of their crew. Different opinions were aired by different parties, some were saddened by this unfortunate event, others were joyful since the kidnapped team were staffs of a major power company most consumers hated. Taking an objective view and rendering my own unbiased opinion, I tried my best to remain in the middle. The issue here is not whether I liked or disliked the captive crews but rather the act of hostage-taking and the events that immediately preceded it. First, the reporters desire to bring the news to the people… the rebels grievance against the government, their ideology if any or simply to gain media mileage. Second, did they considered their personal safety, the opinions and support of their families and employers before embarking in their effort? Third, is the trip worth the effort after carefully weighing and considering the dangers they have to go through in getting it? On my first question, there’s no problem with that. They have done that before in pursuance of their desire to bring the NPA’s ideology, grievance against the government and access to media to attain their goal. On the second, a reporter of a major broadsheet revealed she was supposed to be in that team. It’s her personal desire to be included in that team. When she asked her boss’s permission, her boss says, “NO; It’s very risky. The effort is not worth it.”, still she tried hard to go with the team. She told her daughter she’s going. Her daughter refused, telling her just like what her boss said. She insisted, she’s going. When the daughter sensed, mom can’t be prevented from going… she decided to go with her mother. If anything wrong happened to mother, they would at least be together. If mother gonna get killed, she’ll die with her. Then mother Back Off. On my last question and the most disturbing one, I have dissected it in separate levels so objectivity can be served. On the professional side, getting the news and the truth to the people is a noble motive for any media practitioner worth his salt. On a strictly personal level, having achieved where others can only dreamed off is a monumental achievement. I don’t care if others can do it, attempt to do it, nobody does it… I’ll do it because it’s my personal desire and mission to achieve it. “It’s a personal satisfaction to go “where angels fear to thread.” On the economic side, the desire to outperform the competition, assures anyone his/her continues prestige and economic return that goes with it. A very high profile performer in any field of endeavor can command the highest price the market can offer. Having established a lofty reputation only emboldens and raises the level of hunger and thirst for a higher degree of achievement. I would humbly conclude after a logical analysis that what leads to this hostage taking was the result of pushing the envelope too far.