Good windup, Maple 01.
The "Sensationalist press" do not have a responsibility for the safe conduct of prisoners in their custody. because they don't have prisoners in their custody.
The armed forces mentioned in the original article, and specifically the commanders thereof have a clearly defined and articulated duty (both under military law and international conventions) to protect the prisoners in their custody. Such prisoners should be treated in a humane manner, pending the outcome of a board of inquiry or other legally-appointed body.
Anyone doing otherwise is breaking military law.
Anyone giving an order to do otherwise is giving an illegal order.
Anyone obeying an order to do otherwise is obeying an illegal order.
And (at least for me) that's the issue.
Now you seem to be of the opinion (and I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth) that these suspects/prisoners-of-war/people-as-yet-unconvicted-of-anything are in some way less than entitled to the protection of the law because they look like/share the religion of/live near other people who have committed crimes/acts-of-war. That to me is an indefensible position, and trying to make smoke about "accountability of the press" is irrelevant.