Hostage Taking and Live Television Coverage - Essay Example

Hostage Taking and Live Television Coverage Introduction In his book, Fritsch (2012) observed that numerous incidents of hostage taking covered by live television broadcasts have resulted to loss of lives and conflict of interest between the law enforcing agencies and the public. With the need for communication platform and cheap publicity, hostage takers have always exploited the presence of live television coverage to their advantage, by using the media to justify their acts in the public domain. It is the role of the scene commander to regulate the contents of the live media coverage in a hostage crisis scene and explore the resources available through the live television covering of the scene. Actions for a scene Commander According to Thompson (2006), the scene commander is charged with the overall operations devised to rescue victims who have been held hostage by criminals. One of the key roles of the scene commander is to secure the perimeter of the hostage scene as well as minimize any potential deaths or injuries. Though constitutionally the media enjoys the right to cover any public event including hostage taking incidents, the scene commander can either issue access to the crime scene or prohibit the media from accessing the crime scene depending on the nature of the crime taking place (Hammer, 2007). According to the Centre of Excellence Defense against Terrorism (2007), the scene commander should define or regulate the distance that the media team is allowed within the vicinity of the crime or hotspot. Additionally, the scene commander should regulate the press statements being broadcast by the media houses and the actual filming of the event on live broadcast this is to ensure that media coverage do not jeopardize the efforts of the law enforcement officers. Lastly, the scene commander is also required to control the interaction between the media and the criminals at the scene. According to Fourie (2001), the main objective for the scene commander is to devise possible measures to facilitate the safe rescuing of the victims using the efforts of the rescue teams as well as the tactical team. However, Noesner (2010) suggests that there is a need for the senior commander to monitor the media personnel to avoid commotions such as extreme approach to the area of crime that may agitate or raise suspicion among the robbers, which could result to endangering the lives of the hostages. Furthermore, all media statements should pass through the scene commander for moderation and filtering of any information that may leak relevant intelligence to the robbers concerning the ongoing rescue operation. Live media coverage of hostage taking incident Hammer (2007) observed that live television coverage of a hostage scene is essential in planning rescue mission but also presents an equal amount of risks to the law enforcers. The media constitutionally enjoys press freedom, which dictates that it is free from any force of manipulation in order to broadcast autonomously and therefore, this privilege prohibits even the law enforcement agency from forcefully terminating the live television coverage. In addition, shutting off the live television coverage may raise suspicion among the robbers and jeopardise any form of rapport that may have been already developed by the negotiation team. In his book, McKenna (2000) alternatively stated that there exist other means of regulating the entire live media coverage. McKenna (2000) pointed out that the scene commander might seek consensus with the media houses to delay the live coverage of the scene from five to ten minutes rather than asking them to stop broadcasting; this will offer the scene commander an opportunity to edit or regulate the content that will be aired on live television. Slatkin (2010) further added that by delaying live airing of the crime scene, direct information flow to the robbers will be terminated, and hence enabling the rescue team to design and execute any rescue mission without alarming the victims and the subjects Indirect advantage of live television coverage to law enforcers In his research on hostage taking and terrorism, Nacos (2007) pointed out that the law enforcers in a hostage scene may indirectly utilize the presence of the live television coverage to convey information to the criminals with or without the media cooperation. Through the live television presentation, it is essential that the rescue team activities be viewed from the live broadcasts to show a state of unison compliance with the demands of the robbers. The various activities by the rescue team being highlighted by the television broadcast should emphasize efforts being exerted to meet their demands with utmost emergency. In addition, Lopez (2012) argues that the scene commander may also use the live television to convey soft-spoken statements in line with the robber’s demands while at the same time provoking further interactions with the robbers. Negotiating in live television broadcast Greenstone (2005) observed that in any form of hostage taking, the perpetrators are always ready to negotiate with the government officials to declare their demands in exchange for the hostages. The scene commander should be able to setup a negotiation team comprising of: The primary negotiator, team leader and the coach, who are tasked with engaging the hostage takers in negotiation and evaluating their demands for the release of the hostages (Mullins, 2010). Greenstone (2005) further cautioned that any demands by the robbers to negotiate in the media should be avoided since negotiating with the hostage takers on live television broadcast undermines the fundamental pillar of intelligence gathering, confidentiality and further presents to the hostage takers an upper hand in the negotiation process . Impacts of live broadcast negotiation with hostage takers Previous research conducted by Lanceley (2003) affirmed that any agreement to negotiate with the hostage takers in live television coverage may results into severe consequences that always lead to further deterioration of the hostage situation. The result of such negotiation may prompt hostage takers to seek new demands with the view that public opinion and public pressure on government may influence the decision making to their favour. Moreover, Strentz (2011) cautioned that the entire process of rescue negotiation might have to be remodelled due to the inclusion of the public audience comprising of the family members of the hostages in the negotiation process. Facing such extreme setback and mounting public pressure from family members, the negotiation team may be forced to agree into the demands of the hostage takers prematurely. Thus in the event of public negotiation on live television broadcast the success of the negotiation process primarily lies in the delicate balance between meeting the demands of the hostage takers and governments effort to maintain positive public opinion at the cost of rationale judgement. Most recent works by Strentz (2013) further documented that any incident of negotiating with hostage takers in public television broadcast leads to emergence of hostage takers sympathizers and fanatics who may perpetrate the same acts in the future to gain publicity. Conclusion The media is the main channel for transmission of information between the three parties that include the public, the government, and the hostage takers. Therefore, the media plays a critical role in determine whether a hostage situation will be successfully deter or not but this also depends the cooperation that the media has with the scene commander who might use it to his/ her advantage. Surprisingly the media promotes hostage taking through provision of publicity and a platform for hostage takers to justify their actions to the public. In conclusion, it is can be stated that the determining factor is dependent on scene commander’s capability to effectively utilise the media live coverage to his/ her advantage while limiting the access of the hostage takers to any mass media outlet. References Centre of Excellence Defense Against Terrorism.(2007). The media: The terrorist's battlefield. Netherlands: IOS Press. Fourie, J. (2001). Media studies: Institutions, theories and issues. South Africa: Juta and Company Limited. Fritsch, A. (2012). Public perception of terrorism: How does mass media coverage influence people's risk estimates of a terrorism attack? Germany: GRIN Verlag. Greenstone, J. (2005). The elements of police hostage and crisis negotiations: Critical incidents and how to respond to them. UK: Routledge Publishers. Hammer, M. (2007). Saving lives: The S.A.F.E. model for resolving hostage and crisis incidents. US: Praeger Publishers. Lanceley, F. (2003). On-scene guide for crisis negotiators. US: CRC Press. Lopez, B. (2012). The negotiator: My life at the heart of the hostage trade. US: Skyhorse Publishing. McKenna, S. (2000). Breaking news: A study of the effects of live television news coverage during armed conflicts. US: Storming Media. Mullins, C. (2010). Crisis negotiations, fourth edition: Managing critical incidents and hostage situations in law enforcement and corrections. U.S: Anderson Publishing Company. Nacos, B. (2007). Mass-mediated terrorism: The central role of the media in terrorism and counterterrorism. US: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Noesner, G. (2010). Stalling for time: My life as an FBI hostage negotiator. UK: Random House. Slatkin, A. (2010). Communication in crisis and hostage negotiations: Practical communication techniques, stratagems, and strategies for law enforcement, corrections and emergency service personnel in managing critical. US: Charles C Thomas Pub Ltd. Strentz, T. (2013). Hostage/crisis negotiations: Lessons learned from the bad, the mad, and the sad. US: Charles C Thomas Pub Ltd. Strentz, T. (2011). Psychological aspects of crisis negotiation. US: CRC Press. Thompson, L. (2006). Hostage rescue manual: Tactics of the counter-terrorist professionals.UK: Greenhill Books. Read More