From the moment Ingwerson arrived at his office, his phone was ringing. Calls from reporters, senior executives of media outlets, editors, and news producers came every two or three minutes. Some called repeatedly. Since dawn, television satellite trucks were parked outside the Monitor’s entrance on the plaza, visible from the newsroom windows. Local and national networks were seeking a statement, interviews, more details about Carroll, any morsel of information to air on the morning news. Ingwerson put them off. Between calls and discussions with Scott, Ingwerson jotted down some talking points on his legal pad. He considered what he would say to the media.

Ingwerson decided to seek advice from those living daily with the threat of kidnapping—other news organizations in Iraq. The Monitor was included on a listserv (a list of email addresses) of Baghdad-based news operations. The listserv of news bureau chiefs was intended to pool knowledge on security issues. The listserv was buzzing with conversation about the kidnapping.

So far, no US newspaper had reported Carroll’s disappearance; television and radio were also silent. To Ingwerson’s surprise, some of the other Baghdad-based news editors advised a news blackout to keep the kidnapping as quiet as possible. “I had never known that newspapers did that, because it had never come up in our experience,” Ingwerson says. But it seemed an idea worth serious consideration.

Blackout? Ingwerson and Scott weighed the pros and cons. There were distinct advantages. For one, a news blackout would stall the publication of any information about Carroll that might raise her value to her captors or make her more vulnerable. Conversely, a high profile might spur the kidnappers to hand Carroll over to other groups for money or get Al-Qaeda involved, if they weren’t already, in the bidding process for ransom.


Marshall Ingwerson
© Christian Science Monitor


David Scott
© Christian Science Monitor

A blackout would offer other benefits. News stories might inadvertently contradict what Carroll was telling her captors; an embargo would at least postpone that. Perhaps she had given them a false name, pretended not to know Arabic or claimed to be a non-American. Ingwerson calculated that less attention would create some breathing space in case the kidnappers demanded ransom or, better yet—ignorant that they had captured a US reporter—released her unharmed.

Watch Scott talk about controlling information about Jill

But a blackout carried its own risks. For one thing, the entire Baghdad press corps knew Carroll was missing. Word of her abduction could leak, blackout or no. A leaked story might be worse than one the Monitor released voluntarily; then the paper could at least try to control what was published. Ingwerson also realized that he would need the help and advice of his editorial colleagues around the world. To embargo the story risked alienating other journalists, editors, and TV producers at a time when their assistance could be crucial. “If you turn the press into an enemy, then you compound the problems you have to deal with,” says Editor Bergenheim. ^[11]

Watch Monitor staff discuss reasons for keeping the story quiet

Ingwerson found his own staff divided. Correspondent Peterson favored a blackout; but Foreign Editor Scott leaned toward not asking for a blackout. While he understood the benefits, the idea “went against every fiber in my body,” says Scott. ^[12] Ingwerson was also aware of how easily a news blackout could prompt charges of press favoritism to its own, and he wanted to be sure the Monitor was not asking for special treatment. “Are you asking the press to do something for one of their own that amounts to special treatment that you wouldn’t do for anybody else, for a truck driver who had been kidnapped or something?” he asks.

Ingwerson decided to hold a conference call with Carroll’s parents, who were divorced and living in two states. Scott, Murphy, and Peterson took part in the phone meeting as well. In the end, they all agreed that a news blackout offered more pluses than minuses. “Life trumps most stories most of the time, and my thought, too, is that we’re not making any news disappear. It’s just a matter of trying to delay,” comments Ingwerson.

Watch Ingwerson discuss the controversial nature of media blackouts

When he returned to his desk to inform the listserv members of the decision, it was 9 a.m. Ingwerson told them and other news organizations that he’d prefer there not be any coverage yet. He then asked his editors and correspondents to trawl the Internet for any leaks of the Carroll abduction story. Without being asked, other news outlets did the same and alerted him when they found any. One of the first stories to slip through the net came from China’s Xinhua News Agency. Fortunately, the names and other details were so muddled that no one could have figured out that the story was about Carroll. In the case of other news leaks, Monitor staff contacted the offender by phone or email to ask them to drop the story for a while. Most media organizations complied.

Watch Monitor staff discuss instituting the blackout

But the media were not the only ones eager to learn more about Carroll. Government agencies, as Ingwerson quickly witnessed for himself, were early on the scene as well.