It is wonderful news that Canadian diplomats Robert Fowler and Louis Guay are safe and free. It's been four months since they were snatched in Niger and held hostage by militant groups.

In that same four-month period, it seems like there has been an exponential increase in the number of Canadians taken hostage, which is a sad comment on our world today.

Released Canadian hostages, former diplomat Robert Fowler (in sunglasses) and his UN aide Louis Guay in Mali on Thursday in their first public appearance since being kidnapped by militants four months earlier. (CBC)

Many of you, through letters to the CBC Ombudsman and in the comment sections of our stories, have asked us what our policy is when it comes to covering kidnappings.

Some of you have been particularly critical because the CBC successfully suppressed coverage when one of our reporters, Melissa Fung, was abducted in Afghanistan, even while we have reported others.

Concerns about this issue — both yours and ours — are prompting us to add a series of guidelines on kidnapping and hostage taking very soon to our CBC's policy book on Journalistic Standards and Practices.

We are, by the way are one of the few media organizations in Canada that has such a comprehensive and public set of standards.

Ethical dilemma

Each one of these incidents poses an ethical dilemma for us. As journalists, our instincts are always to publish, to share the information, to hold the facts up to the cold light of day.

But there are also some basic ethical principles we try to adhere to in the practice of our trade. In these cases, the principle that is paramount is "minimize harm."

We are very aware, I assure you, that when we are dealing with kidnappings we are dealing with cases of life and death proportions — each one of which comes with its own special concerns. Because while the general principles are always the same, the circumstances never are.

There are incidents we have never reported.

Also, when it comes to our policy, we would rarely if ever talk about ransom demands or broadcast an abductor's threats.

And we have a long-standing practice of not using kidnapper-shot video of hostages pleading for their lives or making declarations. These hostages are almost certainly under duress.

At the same time, though, we have shown some images from those videos, as they provide proof a victim is still alive. And if this feels like splitting hairs, welcome to our world.

No outright ban

We have reported kidnappings, as you have noted, especially when the agency or government involved goes on the record.

But with each report, we have asked ourselves a series of questions. What is the potential harm? Whom do we need to consult to understand the context or value of the information we have?

If the information is already out there and widely disseminated, is there further harm if we also report it? And if we report, what value are we adding to the understanding of the incident?

When Robert Fowler and Louis Guay were first taken, we did report on it as the UN went public with the incident. As much as possible we stayed away from speculation and rumour, and stuck to the facts. The facts that we could confirm ourselves.

So, while the Canadian diplomats were in captivity, we sent a crew to Mali to ascertain what it could. We did almost no reporting at the time, but we did build independent contacts and a broader understanding of what was going on.

Much of what you have seen and heard reported on this story came from wire service agencies. But when it comes to important stories, stories that involve life and death, we try, as much as possible, to find independent confirmation of these reports.

We waited

Which brings us to Wednesday this week, the day when Fowler and Guay were released.

Many other Canadian news organizations went with the news of their release or impending release as soon as it appeared on the wires. Let's face it, even in today's wired world, news organizations want to be first with a big story.

But in this case, we took a deep breath and decided we had to confirm the story on our own. So, we started working our sources.

At this point, we had also received information that there was, indeed, something going on but that this was at a critical juncture and we could be jeopardizing the outcome if we reported it.

Now, this news was already out there and we could have argued how much worse can we, one organization, make it.

But in this case, the stakes just seemed too high. We did not want to add to the heightened attention or speculation. This was a time when "minimize harm" definitely led us to the decision not to publish or broadcast early.

It was only later in the day when we had two sources of our own tell us that the two men were safe that we went with the story.

There is little doubt we will be faced with another kidnapping story some time soon. Rest assured we will be diligent in weighing all the competing considerations and the impact any coverage we provide might have.