Journalism: In harm's way.

My thread in the pit earned me a fair share of critisism and ire which may or may not be well deserved. My thinking is that when a reporter walks into a dangerous situation and places him/herself in harm’s way, he/she needs to take some responsibility for the possibly (indeed likely) unfortunate outcome.
In opposition to my view Menocchio posited:

My feeling is that a reporter, no matter what the desire to shed light and expose truth must also accept responsibility for his/her actions. Not only that, with said reporter’s butt in a sling, the reporter must also realize that some soldiers will have to expose themselves to perhaps more danger than absolutely necessary to rescue him/her. Now I expect that most reporters do just that. They know they are walking into dangerous situations and really appreciate the protection they receive from friendly military forces, and here’s the topic of debate…

Is it fair to treat reporters as victims in situations where they become captives of enemy forces? Deserving of rescue and harm free passage to safety yes. Absolutely. But ‘Victim’?

So, I (foolishly?) thought this a worthy topic of dabate.

There was a fantastic panel discussion on PBS a few years ago featuring members of the press on one side and the military on the other. It focused on the role of the reporter, rights as well as responsibilities, ethics, and the military responsibilities during wartime.

I’ll try to dig up a transcript…most of the press people are fairly well known (Jennings, Rather, etc.), and they argued a hypothetical war situation (north Kaison, i think)

Anyway, I tend to agree with you. If you put yourself in harm’s way, don’t be surprised if harm befalls you. Doesn’t make it right, it just makes it so. That’s why you’re making the big bucks, right?

I’d be very curious to read that panel discussion. Re: the ‘big bucks’, I don’t think I want to make this a discussion about the money reporters do or do not make in these situations. I’m not sure we can intelligently debate which reporters are motivated by financial gains and to what degree.

It is regrettable, but expected, that journalists will be killed and injured in warzones. The important question here, however, is *why the apparent increase compared to past conflicts?

What’s the difference? I think there is a general understanding amonst journalists that there job is risky and that they are responsible for the risks they take. Since we all agree they should still be protected and rescued, I don’t see what the debate here is.

Good article Sentient though I think it answers its own question (whats the reason for an increase in reporter deaths? Iraq.) It is worth noting that 80 some odd journalists have died this year, and that despite the trashing the press often gets (even from myself sometimes), there are a lot of them that put themselves in harms way to help inform the public, and that without thier services democracy would be impossible.

The big names aside, I doubt that most foreign correspondents are raking in the cash

Well, I was unable to find a full transcript, though I found a partial with some commentary here:

http://www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE02/Cassella02.html

It was part of the Annenberg foundation’s ‘Ethics in America’ series. You can view the entire program through video on demand here (requires free registration):

http://www.learner.org/resources/series81.html?pop=yes&vodid=146737&pid=196

you’re looking for ‘Under Orders, Under Fire’ parts 1 and 2.
riveting stuff.

And as for my earlier comment about the ‘big bucks,’ it’s not a personal observation about the journalists themselves, but more the one-upsmanship that dominates news coverage. Everyone is trying to get their next reporter more embedded than the last. In order to stay competitive ($$$), news organizations are taking risks they might not otherwise.

As with most complex issues, I doubt there is just one answer to that question. A change in the ‘nature’ of conflict? Attempt to control world preception by manipulating (amount of) media spin? Source of funding by extremist groups through extorsion (kidnapping)?

It would also be interesting to find out if there has been a recent sharp rise in ‘entrenched’ media presence. It would be consistant with the rise of ‘sensational’ trends in media coverage.

The debate is: should reporters who voluntarily embed themselves in war/conflict zones be viewed as ‘victims’ of enemy aggression … or even of accidental friendly fire?

I think most reporters are well aware of the risks they undertake and would reject ‘victim’ status. Having said that I take journalist’s deaths very badly.

What they certainly do not deserve is this.

And yet, they are often seen that way.

Can you expand on your reasons?

Butch up. It’s the pit. Rants are generally permited latitude.

I say that there’s a difference between a reporter caught in a crossfire they are reporting on, and one kidnapped by terrorists. One is an accepted risk of war. The other is a criminal act that specifically and needlessly targets non-combatants for terrorist purposes.

I also think that there are some duties that are necessary to the function of a republic, and that one injured (unless by your own stupidity) in the line of doing them deserves full “victim” perks and sympathy, regardless of the fatc they were known to be risky when you went in. Such professions include soldiers, law enforcement, and yes, journalists.

Quite possibly, but I was saying that they themselves would, mostly, reject the notion.

As to others seeing them as such it might have something to do with the perception that journalism is a search for important facts, whatever the risk. I realise this is an ideal, but it one that is often achieved.

Personally, because I’ve worked amongst them and know the risks that are taken and the reasons (good and bad) for them.

More generally because I think the gathering of information to be one of the most important jobs going. If someone dies doing that they gain my respect.

Fair enough, but I still think it was way past the bounds of acceptability.

Perhaps, after all, we are just debating over semantics. I say that voluntarily putting yourself at risk in a war zone and subsequently becoming a captive of opposing forces makes you a prisoner of war and and not a classic ‘victim’. I don’t believe that a journalist in that situation should be seen as a civilian/non-combatant in the strict sense of the word.

I think we agree on these issues though dying in the line of duty does not garner more respect from me. The effort and cause is what I admire. The death just saddens me.

Fair point - I didn’t mean the death part was obligatory!

You really think that journalists should have POW status? I mean, I’m sure there are plenty of civilians that are more or less voluntarily in war zones, either because they don’t want to leave their homes, can’t get out or are trying to make some $$ with some war profiteering and the like. Should they all be given POW status as well?

I think that you attach some meaning on the word “victim” that I don’t. Maybe you need to describe more precisely what you mean by the word. Anyway, I would say that reporters can be victims of the things you mentioned, as can other civilians or even soldiers.

Nope. If you are trapped because your home town is under seige or if you are trapped in makeshift refugee camp because you tried to run to the nearest safe location then you are a victim of war. You didn’t voluntarily choose to leave or be trapped. You had no choice. As a reporter from another country that voluntarily inserts him/her self in the middle of the chaos… you chose your predicament and possible consequences. Hence, like a soldier of a volunteer army, or any army for that matter, you are a POW.

Perhaps above description will serve to clarify my definition of ‘victim’?

  1. I say that a prisoner of war, especially a non-combatant, and doubly so one who is carrying at a vital function such as journalism, is a classic victim, or at least deserves the full measure of sympathy that a classic victim does. An unpleasant thing has been done to them that is not their fault and that they do not deserve.

  2. As this conflict and administration has shown, POW is a specific term, one with legal ramifications. This surely does not describe the non-combatants seized, and often executed, by terrorist insurgents.

I admit that it’s a gray area. They aren’t quite civilians, as they are attatched to the coalition military and are from the coalition’s nations (and other places). But they certainly aren’t combatants, in that they don’t provide combat support or strategic aid to the coalition, and thus shouldn’t be targetted.

Vital function in who’s opinion? The ‘good’ guys? What about how they are viewed by the ‘bad’ guys?

Yes, and I agree that journalist should be treated with all the rights afforded a POW under accepted conventions. Doesn’t mean they will be afforded those rights. Just that they should be.

The first link kindly provided by stonebow addresses this issue. Rather and Wallace (at least) seem to disagree on this issue. One thought it was his duty to report an imminent threat to US soldiers. The other felt it was his duty as an impartial reporter to keep that information private in order to maintain his journalistic integrity.

I submit that an enemy would likely view the former argument as the most likely turn of events and thus justify taking the reporter as a captive/hostage. That’s not the only reason why a reporter may fall hostage but it’s certainly a good one. Plus, as an enemy strategist, would you really want to take a chance on the latter? Besides, if you could extort money for the guy, does it really matter where his journalistic integrity (or political attitude) lies?

War correspondents should not be viewed as victims anymore than soldiers. We should regret their untimely demise just as we regret the death of a soldier. But they aren’t civilians that live in the area and are trying to live out their lives there. Typically they are people from foreign lands that have intentionally travelled into a military theatre to either 1) advance their careers (almost all of the “big name” reporters today earned their stripes doing Vietnam war correspondence), 2) shed light on the “truth” or both.

It is indeed noble and necessary that they expose the truth of war (although it is unfortunate that the military rarely gets a chance to fully defend their actions, as the people that indict them in the media are also the ones who control how much we hear about the military’s side of the story) just as it is noble and necessary that our infantrymen fight and die. The infantryman’s mission is military in nature, the reporters is investigative. Both of them know full well the risks they take on, and they go overseas to take those very risks.

They are not victims when they die.

And in the current conflict they are not victims when they are kidnapped, because all wars involved different things (though there is at least a few universal things involved in all wars) and this current conflict involves terrorism and kidnappings. They aren’t secrets and almost everyone that goes over to Iraq knows about these risks.

As for why more reporters die I just think it’s a simple function of the nature of the conflict. We had the enemy fighting us in the same area reporters were staying at the beginning of the Iraq war, and now we have enemy combatants melding into the civilian population, tormenting it and using them as a shield at the same time. The lines are much more blurred in this conflict.