Western media help Taliban distribute video of captured US soldier

[Simplicio]

@Rune

I assume that the conventions were introduced because it was thought it was wrong to do the things described therein. What is it that makes it acceptable for the BBC to publish material of prisoners and not for states?

I don’t think the issue is that the BBC isn’t a state, but that the BBC hasn’t taken an American soldier prisoner and forced him under duress to film a propaganda video. The Taliban has. The breach is in the production of the video, not simply in distributing it.

There’s a semi-interesting question about whether the BBC is right to show the video (I think it is, but can see where people might disagree), but the Geneva Convention is irrelevant, it pertains to people that actually have control of POW’s, not people that simply possess videos of them made by another party.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Rune

The BBC is a British state media.

Just as a side point, to say that the BBC is a British state media loses rather a lot in translation, and to assume from that that what the BBC says or does is done by the UK as a governing entity is a very large error (though, obviously, to it’s done by the UK as a people in general would be correct).

[Aji_de_Gallina]

The OP certainly raises an interesting point about when does presenting news might actually harm people or help those who are hurting him/her simply because you want to inform.

The fact the the video exists and other (many/most) people have seen it doesn’t dissolve the moral/ethical responsibilities you may have; it does have an impact, I understand.

[JXJohns]

@YogSosoth

I dont think the BBC should have showed the video. The right thing to do was to report on it but keep the video in confidence. Nothing newsworthy is gained by showing a captured US soldier, unless he was making secret signs to tell us his location

It’s nice that we can finally agree on something.

[Declan]

@Rune

The BBC for instance: US soldier shown in Taliban video

The Geneva conventions says: [POWs] must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. The BBC is a British state media. Is the UK (and any media showing the video of the soldier, rather than merely reporting on the event) in breach of the Geneva Convention by allowing – and even participating in – parading captured soldiers?

I think that for the purposes of parading prisoners , the UK would have to be holding the soldier prisoner and using the Beeb for diseminating propaganda images. A violation of the accords could be argued. For the current soldier being held prisoner by the taliban, I dont see any difference from the North Vietnamese broadcasting prisoner confessions, and the Beeb retransmitting it and this situation.

Declan

[Locrian]

I can’t decide what’s really more deplorable about this. Perhaps the media’s agenda is to shed light on war in general, using a human story to show whatever it wants to about it. Maybe how personal it can be, maybe how senseless… doubtful, though. This day and age, they need viewers.

OTOH, we know what’s going to happen, don’t we? The Taliban captors are not going to see their demands met. The troops will not stop invading the requested areas over a kidnapping of a single military man, will they? I can’t see anything next except this soldier’s execution. Sick and wrong.

Unless we see a uptopian type of release of this prisoner, I don’t see a reasonable outcome.

I really hope the troops just come and save this soldier. I hope the men in charge see it as their duty.