Globe and Mail Public Editor Sylvia Stead.The Globe and Mail
I heard from a handful of readers over a story on ransoms paid to help free Canadians held hostage.
The issue began with the execution of John Ridsdel, who had been held for ransom by the terrorist organization Abu Sayyaf. A 68-year-old Philippines resident, Mr. Ridsdel was beheaded after the deadline passed.
Then Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said: "Canada does not and will not pay ransom to terrorists, directly or indirectly. Paying ransom for Canadians would endanger the lives of every single one of the millions of Canadians who live, work and travel around the globe every single year."
That led to the question of whether this was a new policy or not, given that there has been public information about ransoms paid, often indirectly. The Globe and Mail published several stories about the issue, including an editorial asking if the "Trudeau government [did] enough to save John Ridsdel."
But it was this Globe news story with the headline "Evidence suggests Canada made payments in past kidnapping cases" which upset several readers. The article said that while the federal government (including that of former prime minister Stephen Harper) has denied that ransoms were paid, "there is mounting evidence to undermine this claim."
After diplomats Robert Fowler and Louis Guay were released by al-Qaeda in Mali in April, 2009, The Globe and Mail reported that a large cash payment and the release of terrorists was involved in the exchange.
Amanda Lindhout, held hostage in Somalia, wrote in her 2013 memoir A House in the Sky that her captors were offered $250,000 in expense money from the Canadian and Australian government (Australia representing her co-hostage Nigel Brennan). On Saturday, she wrote a personal piece in the National Post saying that while she owed her life to ransom, she agreed with Prime Minister Trudeau's statement.
Despite this public knowledge of ransoms, several readers felt this should be kept quiet to protect Canadian lives.
"What about situations where the article should never have been published in the first place? [The] recent article about Canada paying ransom was irresponsible and puts Canadian lives at risk. I realize that from a journalistic perspective it was an intriguing subject, particularly in light of recent statements by the Canadian government, [but it] puts a bull's-eye on all Canadians working abroad in such insecure environments. Journalists and editors make decisions all the time about which stories should be published and which ones not," one reader wrote to me.
When I explained very briefly on Twitter to another reader that the information was not new and followed the Prime Minister's statement, that person said that wasn't good enough.
Another reader wrote to The Globe to say: "Just in case the world's kidnappers missed it…, The Globe and Mail has chosen to republish the assertion by a former diplomat that Canada does indeed pay ransoms, and generally spotlight the official dissimulation tactics used to free hostages. In striking contrast to most of the information withheld from the general public on spurious claims that national security could be compromised, suppression of this served an obvious purpose.
"What's your goal, Globe? Is it to hamstring the efforts of people trying to deal with these situations in murky corners of the world? Or to add a sense of betrayal by their government to the misery of the already devastated Ridsdel family? Neither are impressive."
Globe editor-in-chief David Walmsley said he considered the coverage carefully. "I do not believe anybody is well served by not reporting contradictions to officialdom. It's our job to understand to the fullest extent possible the shadowy and callous environment of ransom demands. We will continue to be responsible in our coverage."
I believe there is a duty in journalism to explain these important issues and to debate them openly. The issue was very much in the public interest and the Prime Minister made a public statement about the policy which could be a change from past practice.
In order to have a public discussion about current policy and practices for hostages, readers needed to know and be reminded of the facts.