Should we go public or stay out of the media?

This is one of the most common questions that we hear at Hostage International from people affected by arbitrary detentions, but it is also one of the most difficult questions to answer. In this blog, we try to shed some light on this issue.

We are always relieved and deeply moved to see families reunited following the release of a hostage, whether in the news or away from the public eye. Recently, a family privately shared with us some photographs of such a moment following the release of their loved one who had been arbitrarily detained outside their country of residence.

Due to our strict commitment to confidentiality, and the family’s desire to stay out of the media spotlight, we won’t say where they were held, nor for how long, nor exactly when they were released.

For a journalist, this is ‘non-story’; it can’t be covered, is no longer new, is completely anonymous with no opportunity to ask questions nor capture a poignant moment.

For this family, it was a moment of immeasurable significance; a loved one finally home.

Other families have chosen a different path, sharing their experiences publicly and campaigning tirelessly for the release of someone they love. Their stories, too, matter.

These different experiences bring us back to a question we hear so often: should families go public, and will media attention help secure their loved one’s release?

We understand why people ask. When someone you love is detained without justification, you may feel frightened, powerless, and shut out of decisions that profoundly affect their life. You may be searching for anything that could help. Speaking to journalists or sharing information on social media can feel like a way to regain some control, make your loved one’s situation visible, and encourage those with influence to act.

But the decision around whether – or not – to go public is rarely straightforward. There is no definitive answer that applies to every case, and we would never want a family to feel that there is only one right choice at one time that they are expected to make.

At Hostage International, our role is to listen, help families understand the potential benefits and risks, and support them in making a decision that feels right for their particular circumstances.

Understanding the complexities of arbitrary detention

For more than 20 years, Hostage International has supported around 600 individuals who have been through the torment of having a loved one held hostage or who have themselves been taken captive. Over the past decade, we have also seen a steady increase in the number of people and families we support who are affected by arbitrary, or wrongful, detention abroad.

This has given us unique insights to help guide and inform people as best we can, but also to learn along the way.  We deeply appreciate the conversations we have had with everyone who has shared their experiences and reflections on this issue.

Kidnapping and arbitrary detention differ in several ways, particularly in how the media is involved. Media engagement tends to be more nuanced in cases of arbitrary detention, where state actors wrongfully imprison people on spurious charges; families must decide whether to speak to journalists, use social media or other methods to advocate for their loved ones.

From the outset, individuals and their families can be left with very little information about what is happening, why it is happening, or how long it might continue. The detaining authorities retain control throughout, and they will determine the ultimate timing for a release.

For families, living with this uncertainty is exhausting. They may have little information about their loved one’s health, safety, or day-to-day experiences, and will likely feel completely out of control.

In these circumstances, families understandably seek ways to make their voices heard. Publicity can restore a sense of agency, keep their loved one’s case in the public eye, and prompt action when other avenues appear to have stalled.

There may be other motivations, too. A detained person may have asked their family to highlight their plight. Families may hope that public attention will help protect their loved one from mistreatment or will ensure that the person they love is not forgotten.

These are understandable responses to an extraordinarily difficult situation.

Why there is no single right answer

Every detention is different. Even people held in the same country, region or prison can have very different experiences and outcomes. Although patterns and possible parallels may emerge, there are also nuances and deviations from such patterns.

Families who have campaigned publicly often feel strongly that media attention helped secure their loved one’s release or protected them from further harm. Their experiences deserve to be heard and taken seriously. For others, remaining private has felt safer or more appropriate for their family.

Both perspectives are valid.

Those who have campaigned publicly are often more visible. Their stories may be widely reported, and they may be able to offer practical advice and reassurance to others facing similar circumstances. However, families who choose not to engage with the media may be more reluctant to share their experiences, leaving those perspectives less visible.

This can create an incomplete picture for families trying to decide what to do. They may hear compelling accounts of successful public campaigns without having equal access to the experiences of those who remained private. They may also receive conflicting advice from governments, other families, and professionals, each bringing different experiences, priorities, and assessments of risk.

Trying to weigh these competing views while worrying about a loved one can add another layer of pressure to an already overwhelming situation.

At Hostage International, we believe families should have access to balanced information and the freedom to make their own decisions, without feeling pushed towards either publicity or silence.

We draw on our experience of supporting families and former hostages, listening to people who have taken different approaches, and following media coverage over many years. This does not give us all the answers, but it helps us explore the considerations that may matter in an individual case.

What do we know about the impact of media attention?

We have heard from former hostages who have told us of having a ‘psychological boost’ when they heard their names mentioned on the radio or saw their situation reported in the news while they were detained. Knowing that people remembered them, cared about them, and were campaigning to bring them home offered some comfort and hope in the most horrific circumstances.

The significance of this should never be underestimated.

For families, campaigning can also provide a way to express their love and concern, maintain a connection, and to do something meaningful when so much is beyond their control.

Yet we have also seen situations in which publicity may have placed an arbitrarily detained person at greater risk.

In some cases, families have reported – or we have seen – indications of consequences such as solitary confinement, reduced food or water, restricted or refused consular visits, or the loss of contact with loved ones. These possibilities are deeply concerning. Any additional hardship can compound the fear and distress already experienced by someone in detention and the family waiting for their return.

Some families and former hostages have nevertheless said that the benefits of raising awareness outweighed these risks. Others may reach a different conclusion.

Our responsibility is not to decide which perspective is right, but to help families consider what may be at stake in their own circumstances.

Can media coverage help bring a loved one home?

This is often the question at the heart of a family’s decision. Understandably, they want to know whether speaking publicly could shorten the time their loved one spends wrongfully detained.

From our experience, we have not seen clear evidence that media coverage consistently leads to an earlier release from arbitrary detention. Families may have good reasons to believe that publicity played a decisive role in their particular case. However, when we consider the wider range of cases, including those involving extensive media campaigns and those that remained private, the relationship between publicity and the timing of release remains unclear.

In some situations, media engagement may bring meaningful benefits. In others, it may carry risks. Overall, our case experience suggests that its impact on the timing of release is difficult to establish and may be limited. More structured research would be valuable, but the complexity of these cases makes definitive conclusions extremely difficult.

This uncertainty is one of the hardest things for families to live with. When every day feels significant, it is natural to search for the action most likely to make a difference. Unfortunately, we cannot promise that going public will bring a loved one home sooner, just as we cannot say that remaining private will lead to a better outcome.

There are, however, circumstances in which carefully managed publicity may help achieve other important aims.

We have supported families who have raised serious concerns about a loved one’s health and welfare in detention. Their advocacy may have contributed to improvements, including a move out of solitary confinement, access to medical care, or restored communication with family members.

In at least one case, we believe that a carefully planned media campaign and the attention surrounding it likely helped protect a detained person from further harm.

The family – like many we hear from – was often frustrated by the pace of their home government’s efforts but continued to work as closely as possible with officials. While quiet diplomacy can continue alongside media coverage, there was a critical period in this case when the government asked the family to pause all media activity, allowing discussions to proceed without drawing further attention to the detainee or the detaining state. Having led an intensive media and advocacy campaign, the family, understandably, found it difficult to step back. Nevertheless, they agreed to suspend public engagement for several weeks, until their loved one was released. During this time, and on release, engagement with journalists was handled with particular care and sensitivity.

This shows how a media strategy may need to change as circumstances evolve. What feels appropriate at one stage may not be right at another, and families may need to navigate difficult decisions about when to speak, what to say, and when to step back. It also highlights the value of families keeping their government (or whoever is leading on resolution) informed of their media engagement plans or at least listening to government concerns about media at particularly sensitive times, as it is essential that media does not undermine resolution efforts.

Weighing the potential benefits and risks

Families may have many reasons to consider speaking with journalists or using social media to:

• Keep their loved one’s situation visible and ensure they are not forgotten.
• Raise awareness of concerns about their loved one’s health, safety or treatment.
• Encourage their home government to push their diplomatic efforts.
• Respond to a request from their detained loved one to share their story.
• Challenge a lack of information or progress from the authorities or other organisations involved.
• Help protect their loved one by bringing attention to their circumstances.

For some, campaigning becomes a way to channel their fear, frustration and determination into action. We have enormous respect for the energy, courage and sacrifice that families bring to these efforts.

But sustained campaigning can also take a significant toll. Families may feel responsible for keeping their loved one’s story in the news, maintaining social media activity, speaking to journalists and responding to requests for interviews. They may feel that stepping back, even briefly, means letting their loved one down. The pressure to remain visible can become another burden during an already intense and difficult period.

There can also be challenges after release. Some former hostages, particularly those who have had little or no communication with their families during detention, have found the media attention on their return difficult to navigate. Others have felt an obligation to thank supporters publicly at a time when they would rather have privacy, space and time to begin rebuilding their lives.

A public campaign can be an important expression of love and solidarity, but families and former hostages should not feel that it creates an ongoing obligation to share their experiences.

Choosing not to speak publicly does not mean doing nothing, caring any less or advocating less fiercely. We have supported many families who have worked tirelessly towards a resolution through more private channels, without seeking media attention. In such situations, we have seen some people released before serving their full sentences, being able to maintain contact with loved ones, or gaining access medical care.

We have also seen a small number of highly publicised cases in which arbitrary detainees’ sentences have been extended. We cannot establish that publicity caused those outcomes, but these experiences reinforce the importance of considering any potential risks.

How can families approach the media as safely as possible?

At Hostage International, we can offer tailored guidance on media strategy and planning, help families consider the risks associated with their own situations, the different approaches, and how to develop appropriate messaging. We can also share contacts for journalists we know to be more sensitive and, if families wish, sit alongside them during interviews.

Essentially, we can support families around decisions about what to say, which channels to use, and when to speak.

What about putting pressure on your own government?

Arbitrary detention is complicated and resolutions usually take far longer than families can bear to contemplate. The wait can leave families and hostages with a lasting sense that the process took too long and that so much was outside their control.

Families frequently feel frustrated or angry when they believe their government is not doing enough. They may turn to the media in the hope that public pressure will prompt stronger action.

Handled carefully, we have seen relatively little risk in families publicly encouraging their own government to act. However, maintaining constructive relationships with government contacts can be important, and we encourage families to keep those contacts informed of their media plans whenever possible.

We have seen situations in which families who have publicly criticised or condemned their own governments appear to have received less information or engagement. This can intensify feelings of frustration, isolation and anger at a time when families are already under enormous strain. With families’ consent, we will advocate discreetly on their behalf and seek to encourage better communication.

Tensions of this kind can have consequences beyond the immediate detention, affecting families’ wellbeing and the experiences of former hostages after their return.

This does not mean families should suppress their concerns or avoid asking difficult questions. It means considering how best to express those concerns while preserving, wherever possible, relationships with the people who are working to help secure their loved one’s release.

So, should you go public or stay private?

Hostage International’s aim is to help guide and support people to try to ensure that no further harm is done – even where there are so many unknowns.

We would love to have a definitive answer regarding media engagement, but, as demonstrated here, every individual, family, and detention situation is different, nuanced, and complex. Anyone who presents a single, definitive answer is likely viewing the issue through the lens of one particular experience or perspective, rather than taking into account the many factors that can shape each individual case.

Our work is to look at the history we have built through the kaleidoscope of different cases and angles and to help people to make an informed – and hopefully safe – decision that will ultimately feel right for them.

There is no controlled experiment that can tell us what would have happened in an individual case if the family had chosen a different approach. We cannot know whether a release would have come sooner, whether someone’s treatment would have been better or worse, or whether a different decision would have changed the course of events.

Even when a family looks back and feels certain that publicity helped, or that remaining private was the right choice, it is impossible to know with certainty what the alternative would have meant.

What we can do is listen carefully and draw on the experiences of others to help families explore their options and support them as they make decisions in the face of profound uncertainty.

We want families to know that there is no single right way to support a loved one through arbitrary detention. Hostage International is here to listen, guide and support families – nobody should have to navigate these situations alone.

Where to find support

If you or your family would like support in thinking through the potential benefits and risks of media engagement, we encourage you to contact us for advice tailored to your circumstances.

Email: [email protected]

Hostage International also advocates for better support for families and former hostages. To learn more about the challenges faced by families, former hostages and governments, and how the impact of arbitrary detention might be reduced, read insights from our CEO, Lara Symons:

Georgina Cooper, Communications & engagement manager

November 2026