I am still struggling to believe this
Now that the 60 Minutes 'news team’ (and I use that term with some concern for its accuracy) have been released from Lebanese jail and reunited with their family it seems a reasonable time to discuss the actions that led them to their predicament. I should also take a moment to highlight the initially deafening silence over the fate of the men they hired. It has since come out that they were not included in the deal and are, at time of writing this, still in jail awaiting trial. For my part, this seems a clear example of justice for sale, as there is no logical reason for a difference in the treatment between the news team who were conspirators and allegedly instigators of the kidnapping attempt and the men who carried it out.
Much of the coverage of the story has been done with almost gleeful scorn for the reporters' risky misconduct, while a number of articles have been written (mainly by employees and affiliates of Channel 9) in counterpoint, decrying the lack of empathy being shown towards those involved and their families.
I am partially persuaded by elements of the latter, as I take no pleasure in seeing people suffer in jail away from their families, and I felt that the way some commentators almost revelled in the misfortune of 60 Minutes was a little unseemly. On the other hand, I also had little sympathy for the team myself. I will talk about motives for the action in a moment, but first I want to touch on the stupidity of accompanying the kidnap attempt in order to take live footage. Considering they most likely had exclusive rights to the story, why was there a need to be there? Did they not think they had enough of a story without live footage? A good journalist should have easily been able to make a compelling story without it, but they got greedy and wanted to maximise the impact and tension. As such, they deliberately chose to risk putting themselves and their families in a very stressful situation.
There are many people in the world who I have sympathy for. In Lebanon alone, there are over a million refugees from the Syrian conflict. But no I don't feel sorry for people who deliberately put themselves at risks chasing fame. Just get someone that had to be there to take a few still shots with their phone or wear a GoPro, if you really can't tell the story using descriptive prose.
The main defence that 60 Minutes' supporters have made for their actions has been that they were making an important story which would be of considerable public interest. This may well be true but if it is of such public interest it supports my earlier statement that they should have been able to create a compelling piece of journalism without video footage and further undermines their need to actually enter the country and shoot it live.
An even less defensible justification has been that they were righting a wrong that had been inflicted on Ms Faulkner and that 60 Minutes had tried to set it right. Aside from the arrogance and self-delusion it would take to believe that you really are above the law (is this what happens when journalists watch too many Marvel movies?), does the 60 Minutes logic extend to everyone? Should we all ignore laws and just do what we think is right when we see a wrong in this world? I’ll admit it might be nice if we all tried to help each other more, but it needs to be according to agreed rules and laws. A world of vigilantes acting according to their own subjective moral code sounds a difficult one to live in.
A more cynical interpretation of 60 Minutes’ motives would be that they manipulated a desperate woman into choosing the most sensationalist course of action in trying to reclaim her children. While we will never know for certain what the true motive was, this does not seem at all far-fetched. But whatever motive they had for their actions, even the best of intention does not absolve you of responsibility for the consequences of an action. These consequences, which were not unforeseen as possibilities, must have been clearly accepted as possible risks in planning the activity and it still went ahead. In this way those responsible let down their families and friends, just like anyone else making an unnecessary risky decision without considering its impact on loved ones.
But luckily for the 60 Minutes crew, they have been released, along with Ms Faulkner and have gathered a considerable amount of publicity in the process so maybe all is well that ends well (unless you're one of the child extraction team members still facing charges, or you are Mrs Faulkner who has no doubt harmed her future relationship with her children and her chances of regaining them). I would hope that a condition of their release was that they were banned from making a story about the incident, but that seems unlikely and difficult to enforce. Regardless, I certainly will not be rewarding their stupidity by watching the story. The only way we can really make a stand against bad journalism is by not rewarding it.
Much of the coverage of the story has been done with almost gleeful scorn for the reporters' risky misconduct, while a number of articles have been written (mainly by employees and affiliates of Channel 9) in counterpoint, decrying the lack of empathy being shown towards those involved and their families.
I am partially persuaded by elements of the latter, as I take no pleasure in seeing people suffer in jail away from their families, and I felt that the way some commentators almost revelled in the misfortune of 60 Minutes was a little unseemly. On the other hand, I also had little sympathy for the team myself. I will talk about motives for the action in a moment, but first I want to touch on the stupidity of accompanying the kidnap attempt in order to take live footage. Considering they most likely had exclusive rights to the story, why was there a need to be there? Did they not think they had enough of a story without live footage? A good journalist should have easily been able to make a compelling story without it, but they got greedy and wanted to maximise the impact and tension. As such, they deliberately chose to risk putting themselves and their families in a very stressful situation.
There are many people in the world who I have sympathy for. In Lebanon alone, there are over a million refugees from the Syrian conflict. But no I don't feel sorry for people who deliberately put themselves at risks chasing fame. Just get someone that had to be there to take a few still shots with their phone or wear a GoPro, if you really can't tell the story using descriptive prose.
The main defence that 60 Minutes' supporters have made for their actions has been that they were making an important story which would be of considerable public interest. This may well be true but if it is of such public interest it supports my earlier statement that they should have been able to create a compelling piece of journalism without video footage and further undermines their need to actually enter the country and shoot it live.
An even less defensible justification has been that they were righting a wrong that had been inflicted on Ms Faulkner and that 60 Minutes had tried to set it right. Aside from the arrogance and self-delusion it would take to believe that you really are above the law (is this what happens when journalists watch too many Marvel movies?), does the 60 Minutes logic extend to everyone? Should we all ignore laws and just do what we think is right when we see a wrong in this world? I’ll admit it might be nice if we all tried to help each other more, but it needs to be according to agreed rules and laws. A world of vigilantes acting according to their own subjective moral code sounds a difficult one to live in.
A more cynical interpretation of 60 Minutes’ motives would be that they manipulated a desperate woman into choosing the most sensationalist course of action in trying to reclaim her children. While we will never know for certain what the true motive was, this does not seem at all far-fetched. But whatever motive they had for their actions, even the best of intention does not absolve you of responsibility for the consequences of an action. These consequences, which were not unforeseen as possibilities, must have been clearly accepted as possible risks in planning the activity and it still went ahead. In this way those responsible let down their families and friends, just like anyone else making an unnecessary risky decision without considering its impact on loved ones.
But luckily for the 60 Minutes crew, they have been released, along with Ms Faulkner and have gathered a considerable amount of publicity in the process so maybe all is well that ends well (unless you're one of the child extraction team members still facing charges, or you are Mrs Faulkner who has no doubt harmed her future relationship with her children and her chances of regaining them). I would hope that a condition of their release was that they were banned from making a story about the incident, but that seems unlikely and difficult to enforce. Regardless, I certainly will not be rewarding their stupidity by watching the story. The only way we can really make a stand against bad journalism is by not rewarding it.