A number of articles and pictures, published in different newspapers recently, covered the return of a diamond-mining magnate’s son, who was reportedly abducted at a church in Troyeville. His kidnappers demanded a ransom in exchange for the child. The articles and pictures receive Mads for identifying the child after he was returned to his family. This was not in his best interests.

The articles that Media Monitoring Africa (MMA) is concerned about are: “Kidnapped child home after ransom is handed over” (The Star, 12/05/2010, p.1); “Boy just wanted burger” (The Times, 12/05/2010, p.5); “Firms offer insurance as boy’s family pays R1.3m” (Saturday Star, 15/05/2010, p.1); “Abducted boy is back home” (Sowetan, 12/05/2010, p.2) and two pictures published in City Press (16/05/2010, p.6) and Sowetan, (12/05/2010, p.1).

In all the above mentioned articles and pictures, the abducted child was either named and photographed or just named.

Abducted children should not be re-identified in the media when they are found as they are both victims of a crime, and witnesses to that crime. Although identifying these children when they are missing can serve to create public awareness in order to help locate them, the media should not re-identify them when they return home, regardless of the interest that stories around their abduction may have generated. To do so is not only unethical, but it ignores the special legal protection given to child witnesses.

In one of the articles, “Boy just wanted burger” (The Times, 12/05/2010, p.5) the abducted child’s 17-year-old sister was interviewed. She described what the criminals said during negotiations with the family: “They told us on the phone, ‘we are not fools, we know that you are millionaires. If you don’t come (to exchange the child for the money) we will kill the baby and your family”.

Interviewing the child raises ethical questions. Kidnapping is not only traumatic for the victim but also for the family members who stay behind, worrying about the victim’s life at the hands of the abductors. Journalists need to be cautious when interviewing family members of abducted victims, especially children, to avoid secondary trauma which may result from having to relive the experience while telling their stories.

In a similar case, two children, who returned home after being abducted by their uncle, were identified in an article entitled, “They’re back home with dad!” (Daily Sun 18/05/2010, p.4)

The article provided names and a photograph of the children along with details of the kidnapping. “It took six months for (the father) to find (the children aged 5 and 11). They were lured away with sweets and biscuits by their uncle and (their father) immediately laid a charge of kidnapping,” the article reported.

It also went further, by giving details of alleged physical child abuse. The children reportedly told their father that they were forced to herd cattle and were beaten up when they refused. By revealing their identities, this article failed to protect the children who were abused and are witnesses to a crime.

MMA is mindful of the essential role the media plays in reporting on children and commends newspapers for taking an interest on issues around children and their safety. These reports, however, should always serve the best interest of the children they report on and avoid endangering or further traumatizing them.