The video clip showed kidnapped Irish priest Fr. Michael Sinnott holding the Oct. 22, 2009 issue of a Manila newspaper for the kidnappers to prove he was alive.

Fr. Sinnott said in the video, “My kidnappers are led by Commander Abu Jayad. They are asking two million US dollars as ransom money. We are living in the open, in difficult circumstances. I am still in good health even if I do not have the full medicines.”

Copies of the video were received by journalists last Saturday and one television station aired it in its news program.

The ransom demand has been promptly rejected by the government, negotiators and even by colleagues of Fr. Sinnott.

Fr. Patrick O’ Donoghue, major superior of Columbans in the Philippines, said in an article posted on the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines’ website at www.cbcpnews.com that the congregation of the Missionary Society of St. Columban believed ransom should not be paid.

O’Donoghue called on those “who may have ways of influencing those who are still holding Fr. Mick, to continue their efforts to enable the abductors to see that the best and simplest way forward is for them to now release Fr. Sinnott without further delay.”

In reaction to the showing of the video, Press Secretary Cerge Remonde called on media not to give “propaganda mileage” to the kidnappers.

He said, “We appeal to media not to give propaganda mileage to the terrorists holding Father Sinnott hostage for the good of the kidnapped priest and in order not to encourage similar barbaric acts... We assure all that government will do everything within its power and in accordance with international standards to secure the safe release of hostages.”

Remonde asked media to adhere to established canons of journalism and media codes of conduct in kidnap cases.

It is true some media organizations have in their codes certain provisions governing the coverage of kidnapping cases. The general rule is that, upon the request of the police or negotiators or the family of the victim, media will not print or broadcast reports on the kidnapping so as not to hamper rescue operations or to put the victim’s life in danger.

That might not have been the case in the video showing Fr. Sinnott.

The video had already been aired when the request was made and details of the kidnapping had been already known since Fr. Sinnott was taken away by his captors last Oct. 11. What was new and newsworthy was the proof that the victim was alive and that the kidnappers were asking for ransom of US $2 million.

News of the video in fact was reportedly received with relief by Fr. Sinnott’s family and colleagues who were worried about his failing health.

If the purpose is to deprive kidnappers of a venue with which to air their demands or promote themselves, a prohibition on media against reporting on the kidnapping would not be enough. Not in this age of blogs, YouTube and social networking sites like Facebook where almost anyone could upload a video.

The next time a video on the kidnapping is released, it will come out. If not on television news channels or news website, it could be posted on other online venues and there will be no way to stop it from spreading.

(ninicab@sunstar.com.ph)