On January $18,2005,$ the longest prison standoff in the United States occurred when two inmates at an Arizona prison took two correctional officers hostage before surrendering two weeks later. The inmates released one guard, a male, a week into the standoff and the second, a female, at the end. At the beginning of the incident, the governors office feared for the safety of the prison guards and contacted news executives to ask them to keep certain information confidential. The names of the hostages and the prisoners were not released until the end of the hostage situation because authorities worried that publicity would reach the inmates $($television was available in the prison$)$ and botch negotiations. For two weeks, the press waited to publish details or names they learned from other sources. One newspaper editor said that a news blackout creates an atmosphere that feeds off of suspicion and rumor, but also added, We trust that the state is taking the safe road. After the standoff, the prisoners were charged with kidnapping, aggravated assault, escape, and sexual assault. The guards names were not released for many months. In this situation, does a journalists primary obligation to tell the truth to the public outweigh the potential harm to the guards?Part of a journalists code of ethics is to minimize harm and show compassion to those affected by news coverage, so it was very appropriate in this case to withhold information.An increase of publicity in this case probably would have been beneficial to the hostages families so they could share publicly their worry and grief.In this case, the names of the inmates should have been shared in case the public knew people who could knew the inmates and could influence them to release the hostages.A journalist should always consider what their audience, the public, needs to hear, and so more information should have been shared in this case.