Speculations run high that the "tried and tested" formula that the government used to rescue Congressman Ledesma's kids is either ransom, or subdued kidnapping reporting. If it is the former, then once again the government will have proven that that policy is just for show. If it is the latter, a complex set of considerations must be noted.

For one, the government and the media working together may prove dangerous, for obvious reasons. The media keep the government in check, they report anomalies, they make sure it does its job. For the government to have control over the media or for the two to work closely together is to risk the media's fundamental duty.

No cooperation between the two, on the other hand, may heighten the risks for the kidnap victims. Some forms of reporting are directly linked to how dangerous the kidnapping scenario gets, and the considerations of the victim may not be set aside.

The public does have the right to know about the safety and order situation in the country. The various media certainly have the right, and the duty, to inform the public. But those rights constantly need to be weighed against the risks posed against the victims, and sometimes, they have to be put on hold.

It is a difficult process to work, but it has to be done. And for it to work, certain things have to be made clear. First, the media works with the government only on a case-to-case basis. The blackout during the Chung kidnapping and the subdued reporting in the case of Ledesma's kids are not to be taken as precedents licensing the government to ask for media cooperation every time. Second, there has to be a time frame. It must be made clear that either a media blackout or limited reporting will last only to a specific time and condition. Without these, the government may clamp down on the media with powers that shouldn't exist, and the media may budge willingly.