role of reporters at war zone

7/29/2019 role of reporters at war zone

1/31

Amity university lucknow

Project of media analysischallenges of reporters in the

war zones

Submitted to:

Mr. santosh kumar

Submitted by:

Akbar bakht

Bjmc-vith semester

Enrolment no. a7528710090

Reporter's role in the war zone


2/31

Nowadays, thanks to developing technology like satellite and telecommunication

system, the world is becoming smaller and smaller. It is possible for us to get

international news from everywhere in the world. Also, we can receive these news

much faster than before. CNN news is a good example of using the technology

successfully to report news about the Gulf War because CNN had the ability to

present, transmit, and distribute news 24 hours a day at that time. In war zones in

the world, there are some foreign correspondences from US TV networks to report

fresh news to audience from the front lines.

Christiane Amanpour is one of such international correspondents for the Cable

News Network and a part time reporter for CBS's 60 minutes. She was hired by

CNN as a news assistant in 1983 and she was promoted to reporter-producer three

years later. In 1990, she captured her first overseas posts in Germany and then got

her first battle covering the Persian Gulf war In 1991, she delivered live reports

from Saudi Arabia following Iraqi Scud missile attacks. Since then, she hascovered events in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda and the war in Bosnia and

Herzegovina. Amanpour has worked to report from the world's trouble spots for

five years and fellow journalists have made up a rhyme about her. "Where there's

war, there's Amanpour'~ Her strong and brilliant reports have been widely praised

by some of the top people in her field and the CBS News correspondent Mike

Wallace commented about her: "She is an excellent reporter, but more important,

there seems to be something real about her. She seems personally involved, an~ in

TV that is very important because it drags the viewer along with her` (Current

Biography 1996, pg. 11)

What Wallace called her "personally involved" of the war as one reporter made a

controversy when she accused President Bill Clinton of American foreign policy

on Bosnia during a CNN "global forum," an interactive public meeting with

journalists around the world in May 1994.

Amanpour locked glances with President Clinton and said, "Mr. President,... my

question is, as leader of the free world, as leader of the only superpower, why has it

taken you, the United States, so long to articulate a policy on Bosnia? Why, in the

absence of a policy have you allowed the US and the West to be held hostage tothose who do have a policy - the Bosnian Serbs - and do you not think that the

constant flip-flops of your administration on the issue of Bosnia set a very

dangerous precedent and would lead people such as [North Korean president] Kim

II Sung or other strong people to take you less seriously than you would like to be

taken?" An angered Clinton responded coldly, " No, but speeches like that may

make them take me less seriously than I'd like to be taken. There have been no


3/31

constant flip-flops, madam." Also, near the end of the program Clinton returned to

what she had said. "That poor woman has seen the horrors of this war, and she has

had to report on them... She's been fabulous. She's done a great service to the

whole world on that. I do not blame her for being mad at me. But I'm doing the

best I can on t,his problem from my perspective" (Picchiard, p25-26).

Here, there are some questions whether journalists like Amanpour are crossing a

fine line between reporting and crusading, and are trying to influence foreign

policy rather than simply report facts. After that day, political people and news

analysts argued not only about her admonition to Clinton but also about her

reporting from the war zone by using the words, "advocacy journalism," What

kinds of problems does advocacy journalism have? Even though Amanpour has

seen the horrors of the war as Clinton mentioned, is it :correct what she reported

during the war and said to the President as a reporter? We can 'link about the points

that people criticized and argued about Amanpour to answer these questions herway of reporting and her ideal to influence foreign policy from the point of view of

a reporter.

First, we can examine her reporting style from the war zone that people criticized

later. There are two basic journalistic instincts according to media scholars in

"Existential Journalism": the first is more "sense oriented" or subjective and the

second is more "fact oriented" or objective (Picchiard, p27). According to the

media scholar John C. Merril "subjective journalists want to bring themselves,

their judgments to bear on the news of day. They are not satisfied to be mere

bystanders. The aloof journalist, on the other hand maintains that journalism isprimarily a disinterested activity in which the audience should not be encumbered

by journalists' biases, prejudices, judgments, feelings or opinions." He also says

that most, journalists tend to be objectivists who give short shrift to personal

judgments and advocacy journalism. Amanpour's approach of reporting is

subjective because she had a strong purpose when she reported. However, why is

subjective reporting criticized by people?

A veteran foreign correspondent David Binder of the New York Times mentions:

"...Our job is to report from all sides, not to play favorites" (Picchiard,p27). AlsoJackson Diehl, the Washington Post's assistant managing editor for foreign news,

says that getting too close to a story is always a danger. Diehl says that particularly

for journalists who witness horrific events, "being as objective as possible, being

an observer and not taking ides is something they all struggle with" (Picchiard,

p26). Such people say subjective :reporting is not appropriate for reporters because


4/31

their selective news have bias or stereotype from them and it's not good for

audience to receive such news.

About bias, UN officials discontented with the quality and fairness of media

,coverage of events in Bosnia criticized the media for having a "blood lust" and an

anti-Serb bias. Also Balkan analyst Obrad Kesic wonders why more reporters

didn't write about Serbian children who were targeted by snipers or about Serbian

refugees forced into exile. (Picchiard, p29). On the other side, Amanpour explains

the Serbs denied CNN and other Western media better access to the territory they

controlled and believed the Serbs did themselves an incredible disservice.

Also Amanpour asserts about objectivity: "The very notion of objectivity in war

becomes immensely important... I have come to believe that objectivity means

giving all sides a fair hearing, but not treating all sides equally Once you treat all

sides the same in a case such as Bosnia, you are drawing a moral equivalencebetween victim and aggressor. And from there it is a short step toward being

neutral...So objectivity must go hand in hand with morality" (Amanpour,p 17) As

we know, Amanpour understands the importance of objectivity for reporting from

her point of view.

We can tell that reporting from war zones is something different from the usual

reporting in which neutral journalistic approach is required. Throughout the history

of the United States, the media have played a central role in wartime. Obviously,

the media have provide the major source kept informing about military events and

the overall direction of the war to the people. However, the role of the reporters inwar time has gone much beyond the basic questions of who, what, where, and

when. As the primary source of information during wartime, the media have

helped to rivet American attention on the various military struggles in which the

United States has taken pan. By and large, the American media as an institution

have generally been in favor of American military actions and have sought to

encourage public support and to bolster morale through their coverage of events

However, such traditional reporters' role had changed after the Vietnam War.

During the war, the advent of television had some impact, for it brought the war

into everyone~s living room on a daily basis (Startt and Sloan, p66)

In 1967, seventeen million Americans watched NBC news nightly, fourteen

million watched CBS, and six million watched ABC The figures for 1970 were

about nineteen million for CBS, eighteen million for NBC, and eight million for

ABC During the years from 1968 through 1973, television devoted 25 percent of

its air time to Vietnam-related stories. Scholars agree that television newscasts do


5/31

shape the public's opinions (Small, p17). CBS correspondent Morley Safer in

Dateline 1966, published by the Overseas Press Club mentioned about the

functions of TV news during the Vietnam War:

This is television's first war. It is only in the past few years

that the medium has become portable enough to go out on

military operations. And this has raised some serious

problems - problems, incidentally, which every network

correspondent and cameraman in Vietnam is acutely aware

of

The camera can describe in excruciating, harrowing detail

what war is all about [emphasis added]. The cry of pain, theshattered face - it's all there on film, and out it goes into

millions of American homes during the dinner hour. It is

true that on Its own every piece of war film takes an a

certain battle men do not die with a clean shot through the

heart; they are blown to pieces Television tells it that way.

It also tells what happens to civilians who are caught in the

middle of battle. It tells what happens to soldiers under the

stress of the unreal conditions in which they live... The

unfavorable has always been reported along with thefavorable but television tells it with greater impact

(Braestrup, p67).

Thus, in the case of the Vietnam War, the media had a somewhat reverse impact by

depressing moral rather than boosting it, as had been true in the past. We can say it

was the reporters who select these scenes that gave strong impressions to US

audience from the war zone. According to Frank McCulloch, who covered the

Vietnam War for Time magazine, "In World War II there was no doubt what the

reporters' role was, especially from the US point of view. They had full censorship,

accepted it and saw the need for it..But in Vietnam we shifted, not toward a

Communist point of view. but in doubting and challenging the US mission, both in

terms of how adequately it was fulfilled and whether it was a worthy mission to

begin with. That's the first time we questioned what the US was doing and if they

were doing it well (Ricchiardi,p2B). As we know from the example of the Vietnam


6/31

War reporting, reporters had their own points of view and made judgment what

news they should distribute to the audience from the war zone.

Here, we should understand that the role of reporters during the Vietnam War was

different from those during the Bosnian war because American reporters were

covering a third party war in which the US had been a bystander for the most part.

It is very difficult for reporters to determine how they should report the news from

such war zone and the reporters` professional judgment are required.

Marvin Stone, a former editor of US News & World Report who covered the

Korean and Vietnam wars stresses: "lust the pure act of reporting the immorality

you witness on the ground in Bosnia makes you an advocate You don't always get

two sides to the story, particularly in wartime" (Picchiard, p28). Amanpour's way

of reporting was to put a human face on the conflict, rather than simply focus an

battles and firefights. Amanpour expresses the point: "What I admire most, andwhat kept me going during the war, was the incredible resistance among ordinary

people to the indignities they were undergoing Bosnia really was a war against

civilians and against their dignity" (Picchiard, p26). As we know, Amanpour's way

of reporting was selective in the war zone. However, as we know, reporting from a

war zone is not the same as usual reporting. Reporters in the war zones an required

to have judgment of what is news in the war there and what they want to distribute

to audiences as journalists. We cannot say advocacy journalism is not appropriate

for reporters from the war zone simply if they make judgment with a responsibility

to select and report news to audience from a point of view of journalists.

Next, we can consider another controversy about Amanpour as a reporter: her ideal

of reporting is to influence foreign policy and she accused the President of US

foreign policy on Bosnia. Is it possible for reporters to influence government

policies or spur the international community into action? The foreign editor for

USA Today Johanna Neuman doesn't believe impassioned newspaper reports and

graphic TV images sway policy. Neuman mentions Bosnia as proof that the media

often have little influence on diplomacy, despite four years of reporting from

Bosnia Neuman stresses "If images were driving policy, the US Marines would

have marched into Bosnia a long time ago" (Ricchiardi, p29).

On the other hand, Amanpour believes that TV reporting from the war zone is the

most powerful approach to influence foreign policy. When we consider the

example that the media influence to government policy during the Vietnam War,

we can recognize her idea is right in some ways. According to Mclvin Small in

"Covering Dissent, during the Vietnam War, opinion in America was affected most


7/31

by the influential media, which either affected the perceptions of opinion leaders

directly or affected other media, which in turn affected their readers, some of

whom were local opinion leaders(Small, p4). Also, Small stresses: "The media also

create opinion by reporting opinion. When television anchors stare that the country

is in a conservative mood, they cause some members of their audience, who do not

know what mood they are in, to think that they are in a conservative mood. More

specifically, when a CBS New York Times poll suggested that antiwar sentiment

was growing, some who were nervous about holding an allegedly unpatriotic or

unpopular view decided to come out of the closest with their opposition to the war

(Small, pg. 11).

As we know, it is possible for reporters to set agenda to the public by doing these

ways of reporting. About agenda setting during the Vietnam War, Small also

mentions: "Most observers agree that although the media are not generally

successful in telling their audiences what to think, they are undoubtedly successfulin telling them what to think about. Few doubt the importance of the agenda setting

role of newspapers, magazines, and the electronic media. Although that role is

affected by what readers and viewers bring with them to a news story, in general:

when it appears in several media in a prominent location, people will begin

thinking about that story. Since most media tend to agree about the relative

importance of news, readers and viewers are exposed to a national agenda that is

reinforced, wherever they look, day after day (Small, pg.11)

There was no doubt that the media had powerful influence to the government

policy during the Vietnam War. However, it was not reporters but the public whoinfluenced government policy after they saw news report from the war zone and

the role of reporters became support for the public's antiwar activities. Here, we

can consider Amanpour's question to Clinton in the global forum.

Amanpour told in American journalism Review: "The question wasn't designed to

be rude to the president. Clearly, it was motivated by my gut and from my

experience here. And I think I was right" (Ricchiardi, p 26). In my opinion, this her

behavior exceed far over the line as a reporter because the role of reporter is only

to report the fact to audience. If the news is the fact, even though it is selectivenews that reporters choose from their points of view, it is acceptable for us. We can

tell that it is possible for her to expect people arouse public opinion about Serb as

aggressor after her reporting from the war zone and the public opinion can change

US foreign policy, but she should not have criticized Clinton directly from the

standpoint of a reporter's job


8/31

In conclusion, we cannot deny Amanpour's ways of reporting as the advocacy

journalism even though her reporting tend to be selective in a war zone if a reporter

has appropriate judgment with the responsibility to the audience. Amanpour judges

in her way: "With this war, it was not possible for a human being to be neutral...

Life obviously is full of gray areas most of the time. But sometimes in life, there

are clear examples of black and white... I think during the three-and-a-half-year

war in Bosnia, there was a clear aggressor and clear victim'~ (Picchiard, p27). Also

she defends her reporting "I only report what I see. [But] what does it mean to be

completely unbiased? If I were covering the Holocaust, would I have to say,Oh,

the poor Nazis, maybe they have a point?" (Current Biography 1996, p10).

On the other hand, we should not accept her behavior against President Clinton at

the global forum because her behavior of trying to influence foreign policy directly

was over the line as a reporter even though she had enough reasons from herexperiences in the war zone.

However, at least, her judgment of news in war zone became popular and helped

establish the cable network as must-see TV for world leaders. (Reibstein, p64). As

Mike Wallace praised Amanpour on 60 minutes , she is "the best-known foreign

correspondent in the world" and the one who has "covered more death and misery

than just about any other US reporter in the past four years" (Picchiard, p31). In

fact, Amanpour has won more than 13 journalism awards for her reporting from

Bosnia. Also, CNN gets to keep Amanpour and gets promotional mileage from an

agreement that she will be identified on 60 Minutes as a CNN correspondent. Shegets to stay at CNN, which runs more foreign news than the networks do, while

finding a wider US audience on CBS.

A CNN foreign correspondent Waiter Rodgers told Stephen Kinzer, who profiled

Amanpour for the New York Times Magazine: "She gives the best war in the

business. That is why right now, she's the hottest property in American television"

(Current Biography 1996, p9). Amanpour "gives great war" not only in business

but also in journalistic controversy about reporters' roles. People need Amanpour

for foreign news reporting and she is the one who shows the important role of a

reporter in a war zone and the role there is different from the usual role.


9/31

Should the media pull women journalists out of

war zones?

AfterLara Logan, a seasoned reporter and chief foreign correspondent for CBS

news, wasattacked and sexually assaulted in Cairo on Friday, news networks

reportedly met to discusspulling their female journalists out of Egypt, a move that

some journalists say is understandable and expected but potentially insulting and

dangerous.

"It is an expected networks response. In 2001, when a (male) Swedish journalist

was killed in northern Afghanistan, several networks pulled out their reporters

from the region." says longtime war correspondent Anna Badkhen, the author

ofPeace Meals and Waiting for the Taliban. "I understand why executives at a

network, or a newspaper, or a magazine, may feel uncomfortable with subjecting

their reporters to potential danger." Susan Milligan, a political reporter who hascovered war in Iraq and the Balkans and is now a contributing editor at US News &

World Report, says she thinks it is "insulting specifically to Lara Logan, who is a

terrific reporter. If you're pulling all of the women out, you're essentially saying

that what happened to her is her fault."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/02/broadcasts/main1273553.shtml?tag=mncol;lst;1http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/15/60minutes/main20032070.shtml?tag=mncol%3Blst%3B1http://www.popeater.com/2011/02/16/egypt-female-reporter-attacks/http://centerforinvestigativereporting.org/reporters?profile=465http://annabadkhen.com/bookpm.htmlhttp://annabadkhen.com/bookwft.htmlhttp://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milliganhttp://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milliganhttp://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milliganhttp://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milliganhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/02/broadcasts/main1273553.shtml?tag=mncol;lst;1http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/15/60minutes/main20032070.shtml?tag=mncol%3Blst%3B1http://www.popeater.com/2011/02/16/egypt-female-reporter-attacks/http://centerforinvestigativereporting.org/reporters?profile=465http://annabadkhen.com/bookpm.htmlhttp://annabadkhen.com/bookwft.htmlhttp://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milliganhttp://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milligan


10/31

"For women, there is always a danger of rape or sexual assault when covering

unpredictable and dangerous stories," says Leila Fadel, the Cairo bureau chief

forThe Washington Post. "I think this applies when covering violent crime in

D.C., in the midst of an unpredictable revolution, or in a war zone."

Fadel, who has reported from Baghdad and who won the George R. Polk Award

for outstanding foreign reporting in 2007, was detained briefly by military police in

Egypt earlier this month ("I suddenly found myself blindfolded and handcuffed

and in jail," she said in an audio postsoon after the incident). Still, she says now,

preventing women from reporting on dangerous situations is not the answer.

"What happened to Lara Logan was horrendous, frightening and an absolutely

unforgivable crime," Fadel says. "It was shocking to me because the entire time I

worked in Tahrir Square I found little to no sexual harassment in a nation where

groping and forms of sexual harassment have long been highlighted by female

activists but received little attention until this incident."

"I'm saddened about what Ms. Logan must be going through at this moment and

my heart goes out to her," Fadel added. "But I don't think that what appears to be

an isolated incident should be a reason to pull seasoned female correspondents

away from a very important story." To do so would undermine the diversity of the

coverage and "minimize coverage of the future of a nation that overthrew a dictator

in a largely peaceful manner and inspired a region to demand change," she says.

The risk associated with being a war correspondent isn't limited to women, says

Badkhen, who has covered wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Israel, the

Palestinian territories, Chechnya and Kashmir for a number of media outlets

including The Boston Globe, The Christian Science Monitor,FRONTLINE,

and Salon. "I categorically do not believe that women war correspondents are more

vulnerable than war correspondents who are men," Badkhen says.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/articles/leila+fadel/http://audioboo.fm/boos/271049-leila-fadel-talks-about-being-detainedhttp://search.boston.com/local/Search.do?s.sm.query=&s.author=Anna+Badkhen&s.si(simplesearchinput).sortBy=-articleprintpublicationdate&s.tab=globe&s.si(simplesearchinput).hitsPerPage=25http://www.csmonitor.com/content/search?SearchText=%22Anna+Badkhen%22http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/blog/2010/03/chechnyas_hidde_1.htmlhttp://dir.salon.com/topics/anna_badkhen/http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/articles/leila+fadel/http://audioboo.fm/boos/271049-leila-fadel-talks-about-being-detainedhttp://search.boston.com/local/Search.do?s.sm.query=&s.author=Anna+Badkhen&s.si(simplesearchinput).sortBy=-articleprintpublicationdate&s.tab=globe&s.si(simplesearchinput).hitsPerPage=25http://www.csmonitor.com/content/search?SearchText=%22Anna+Badkhen%22http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/blog/2010/03/chechnyas_hidde_1.htmlhttp://dir.salon.com/topics/anna_badkhen/


11/31

"Female andmale correspondents have been killed, maimed, wounded in conflict

zones," she continues. "Female andmale correspondents have been raped. I have

been sexually assaulted (not raped) in war zones. Male colleagues I know have

been subjected to torture that involved their sexual organs. The nature of torture,

the origin of torture, is to degrade, to render the tortured helpless. The torturer

typically goes for methods both the torturer and the tortured consider the most

humiliating."

"Both Western journalists who lost their limbs on land mines in Afghanistan since

last fall are men," Badkhen points out. "They could have been women. As a rule,

war does not discriminate." Milligan, who was based in Budapest for years,

agrees. "I was in the Balkans and in Iraq and in Haiti and other places. It's a risk for

everyone. I was at greater risk for being raped, probably. But [compared to her

male colleagues] I was at lower risk of being killed."

She recalls an incident in Kosovo in 1999. "I was with two male reporters and a

female translator. We saw a village being burned down, and stupidly drove to it.

Then we were surrounded by super paramilitary with guns, who dragged us out

and held guns to our skulls and threatened to kill us." Having both men and women

in the group changed the dynamic, she says. "They were more willing to believe

that we weren't soldiers or part of a movement. It was good to have a mixed group.

I think that's why we got out of there alive."

Edited to add:Anne Barnard, aNew York Times reporter who, with her husband,

Thanassis Cambanis, was co-chief ofThe Boston Globe's Baghdad bureau for

years, says that in some cases it was easier for her to stay safe than it was for her

husband. "In war zones like Iraq, I often felt women were safer than men-it was

easier for us to blend in by wearing hijab, and in some situations it felt that we
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milligan/2011/02/16/lara-logan-assaulted-and-then-blamedhttp://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/b/anne_barnard/index.htmlhttp://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milligan/2011/02/16/lara-logan-assaulted-and-then-blamedhttp://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/b/anne_barnard/index.html


12/31

were less likely to be targeted by people seeking to take out anger on a symbol of

the occupying military," she explains.

But in spite of the risks, journalists shouldn't be forbidden from covering

dangerous situations because of their gender, Milligan says.

"Nobody made me go to the Balkans. Nobody made Lara Logango to Egypt.

Nobody madeAnderson Coopergo," Milligan points out. "Yeah, reporting in a war

zone is risky. Being a member of U.S. military is risky. Being a police officer is

risky. But it's a risk that we choose to take because it's an important part of

democracy, telling people what's going on."

Why do journalists risk their lives in war zones?

In a devastating blow to journalism, award-winning photojournalists Tim

Hetherington andChris Hondroswere killedwhile covering a battle between

rebels and Libyan government forces in the city of Misrata on Wednesday.

Richard Engel, NBC News chief foreign correspondent, has spent over a decade

reporting from war zones across the Middle East, in Iraq, Afghanistan and

Lebanon, and most recently on the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.

In a phone interview while driving back into Libya from Egypt after a brief break,

he discussed the tragic deaths of Hetherington and Hondros and why war

reporters do what they do.

When something like the deaths of these two photojournalists happen, people

always ask why do war reporters do it? What motivates them to risk their

lives to tell the story?

Engel: I think Tim and Chris were doing this because they clearly loved it. They

were in a position to experience world events first-hand and to make a

difference. Their work portrayed war in a close-up fashion that showed the world

what conflict is really like, what its like for the victims and what its like for the

soldiers.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20017555-10391709.html?tag=mncol;lst;9http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7711274/anderson_cooper_roughed_up_by_promubarak.htmlhttp://www.timhetherington.com/http://www.timhetherington.com/http://www.chrishondros.com/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42682853/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5424809/ns/nightly_news-about_us/http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20017555-10391709.html?tag=mncol;lst;9http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7711274/anderson_cooper_roughed_up_by_promubarak.htmlhttp://www.timhetherington.com/http://www.timhetherington.com/http://www.chrishondros.com/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42682853/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5424809/ns/nightly_news-about_us/


13/31

I think that unique experience and perspective compelled them to do what they did.

And it inspires all of us to do it. And in this community of reporters, their loss is

very deeply felt. There is a palpable feeling of loss among their colleagues today.

Did you ever work with either of them?

Engel: Tim was one of the co-directors of the documentary Restrepo. He and

Sebastian Junger spent a lot of time in the Korengal Valley in Afghanistan.

Coincidentally it was the same outpost that we made a documentary about it

called Tip of the Spear. So I know what they went through because we also spent

a great deal of time at the same outpost called Restrepo.

It was an incredibly dangerous place with very poor conditions hiking for hours a

day up and down mountain sides. To do this kind of work it takes tremendous

dedication, tremendous willingness to put yourself at risk and tremendous physical

stamina. Tim was 41 years old, but he was running up and down mountains

alongside U.S. troops who are on average 22, 23, 24 years old.

I unfortunately never had the pleasure of knowing Tim, but I know his work and

was envious of the incredible material he got. We were at the same place, but he

got so many pictures that I wish I had gotten myself.

Chris was definitely a part of the community of reporters; everybody knew him.

There is a very small group of war correspondents people who you consistently

see. In Baghdad, in South Lebanon, in Afghanistan, in Libya now there are

maybe a couple of hundred people and that includes Europeans, Americans

thats it.

THE SETTING AT THE Waldorf-Astoria hotel on Tuesday represented the

height of refinement, but Alan Rusbridger, editor in chief of The Guardian,

reminded the black-tie crowd at the annual dinner for the Committee to Protect

Journalists of something it knew all too well: in many parts of the globe, its

profession is under murderous assault.

Targeting journalism has become a trend, and now the people who are harassing

and killing journalists include governments as well as the people you would

expect, said Mr. Rusbridger, who, along with others, was honored at the gathering

in New York.

Journalists who dig into murky and dangerous corners of the world have become

accustomed to being threatened and sometimes hunted by drug lords and gangsters,
http://restrepothemovie.com/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5424809/ns/nightly_news-about_us/http://restrepothemovie.com/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5424809/ns/nightly_news-about_us/


14/31

but now some governments have decided shooting the messenger is a viable

option.

The C.P.J. reports that government officials and their allies are now suspected of

being responsible for more than a third of the murders of journalists, a higher

proportion than killings attributed to terrorist groups or criminal enterprises.

On the same day as the Waldorf event, three employees of news organizations

were killed in Gazaby Israeli missiles.

Rather than suggesting it was a mistake, or denying responsibility, an Israeli

Defense Forces spokeswoman, Lt. Col. Avital Leibovich, told The Associated

Press, The targets are people who have relevance to terror activity.

So it has come to this: killing members of the news media can be justified by a

phrase as amorphous as relevance to terror activity.

We have entered a very different era of information management in contemporary

conflicts. As my colleague Noam Cohen reported last week, both sides in the Gaza

conflict used Twitter accounts to fire verbal shots back and forth in an effort toshape perception in the outside world.

The good news is that, unlike in 2008, foreign correspondents were allowed to

enter Gaza and see for themselves. The bad news is that they were entering a place

where some journalists already there were considered targets, making a dangerous

situation all the more so.

Mahmoud al-Kumi and Hussam Salama worked as cameramen for Al-Aqsa TV,

which is run by Hamas and whose reporting frequently reflects that affiliation.

They were covering events in central Gaza when a missile struck their car, which,

according to Al-Aqsa, was clearly marked with the letters TV. (The car just in

front of them was carrying a translator and driver for The New York Times, so the

execution hit close to our organization.) And Mohamed Abu Aisha, director of the

private Al-Quds Educational Radio, was also in a car when it was hit by a missile.

Human Rights Watch spoke up in protest, saying in a statement, Civilian

broadcasting facilities are not rendered legitimate military targets simply because

they broadcast pro-Hamas or anti-Israel propaganda. Reporters Without Borders,

another advocacy group, called the killings a clear violation of international

standards.

Israeli officials have said Hamas was using journalists and their operations as

human shields, and a press officer for the Israeli Defense Force warned in aTwitter post that reporters should be wary of the company they keep: Advice to

reporters in #Gaza, just like any person in Gaza: For your own safety, stay away

from #Hamas positions and operatives.

While it is true that news media operations have become one more arrow in the

quiver of modern warfare, a direct attack on information gatherers of any stripe is
http://www.cpj.org/security/2012/11/will-un-plan-address-impunity-security-for-journal.phphttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/gaza_strip/index.html?inline=nyt-geohttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/world/middleeast/in-gaza-conflict-fighting-with-weapons-and-postings-on-twitter.htmlhttp://www.hrw.org/news/2012/11/20/q-hostilities-between-israel-and-hamashttps://twitter.com/IDFSpokesperson/status/270141407015079936https://twitter.com/IDFSpokesperson/status/270141407015079936http://www.cpj.org/security/2012/11/will-un-plan-address-impunity-security-for-journal.phphttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/gaza_strip/index.html?inline=nyt-geohttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/world/middleeast/in-gaza-conflict-fighting-with-weapons-and-postings-on-twitter.htmlhttp://www.hrw.org/news/2012/11/20/q-hostilities-between-israel-and-hamashttps://twitter.com/IDFSpokesperson/status/270141407015079936https://twitter.com/IDFSpokesperson/status/270141407015079936


15/31

deeply troubling. And such attacks are hardly restricted to Israel: recall that in the

United States assault on Baghdad, television stations were early targets.

A distinction needs to be made. The battle over ideas over who owns the truth

in a given conflict should be fought with notebooks and video cameras, not

weapons of war.

The precision strikes were part of a very dangerous and violent few days for

journalists in the region. Last Sunday, three airstrikes by Israel hit two buildings

that might have included legitimate targets, but also housed journalists and

production personnel from a variety of local and international news media outlets.

Television viewers could confirm for themselves that reporting in Gaza can get

pretty hairy. During a live shot last Sunday, Anderson Cooper of CNN could be

seen ducking after a loud explosion, before popping right back up to continue his

report.

The violence against journalists in Gaza points to a larger, deadly trend. On

Wednesday, the International Press Instituteissued a report saying that 119journalists had been killed this year, the highest total since it started keeping track

in 1997. The total included all journalists who died while doing their jobs, not just

journalists who might have been targeted for their affiliation or reporting.

Lets acknowledge that many of those who died were so-called conflict journalists

reporters, photographers and videographers who understood at least some of the

associated risks.

But other factors are worth considering. At a time when news outlets in the United

States are cutting foreign operations for monetary reasons, cheap and ubiquitous

technology has lowered the entry barrier for others who want to engage in

journalism, some of whom are already in the theater of conflict and may have

partisan motives. Many of those newer players are young and inexperienced in

ways that make them particularly vulnerable in the middle of dangerous conflicts.

Other journalists have close affiliations with partisan forces in these conflicts.

As news media organizations become increasingly politicized, all journalists risk

ending up as collateral casualties because they are working adjacent to outlets

viewed as purveyors of propaganda.

In Syria at the beginning of the year, Marie Colvin, who had been reporting for

The Sunday Times of London, and Rmi Ochlik, a French photographer, died

when the makeshift media center where they were working alongside oppositionjournalists was destroyed.

The nature of war has changed in a way that makes covering it more dangerous.

Improvised explosive devices, or I.E.D.s, and suicide bombers make no

distinction in whom they kill and maim, and the street protests that were the flash

point for the Arab Spring were a difficult and dangerous reporting challenge
http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/11/19/nr-sot-gaza-anderson-cooper-explosion.cnnhttp://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/11/19/nr-sot-gaza-anderson-cooper-explosion.cnnhttp://www.freemedia.at/home/singleview/article/2012-deadliest-year-on-record-for-journalists.htmlhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/syria/index.html?inline=nyt-geohttp://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/11/19/nr-sot-gaza-anderson-cooper-explosion.cnnhttp://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/11/19/nr-sot-gaza-anderson-cooper-explosion.cnnhttp://www.freemedia.at/home/singleview/article/2012-deadliest-year-on-record-for-journalists.htmlhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/syria/index.html?inline=nyt-geo


16/31

because the protesters and state forces trying to contain them could both be a

threat.

The deadliest country for journalists this year, in terms of the number who died,

was Syria, according to the International Press Institute. Journalists stay safe, in

part, by knowing where to position themselves, but that conflict was full of

asymmetries. In a place where the front lines are constantly shifting, the margin is

razor thin between reporting on the death toll and becoming part of it.

Unesco has recognized that more is at stake than dangerous working conditions. It

has convened a series of meetings,one of which took place in Vienna last week,

investigating ways to increase journalists safety and maintain the free flow of

information out of combat zones.

The more important principle at work is whether governments in the Middle East

and elsewhere will succeed in shaping or silencing different points of view by

training missiles and bullets on journalists. If they do, the battle for the truth will

disappear into the fog of war.

In today's world, journalists face greater dangers.GAs the old adage goes, the first casualty of war is truth. Is the second casualty

the truth-teller? In the battle to win the hearts and minds of the public, the media

- and its ground troops, the reporters who cover the news - are taking greater

risks than ever before to bring the news home, live and in real time.

But at what cost? Many are maimed physically or psychologically, or both. Othersdie.

Recent conflicts bear this out. During four weeks of fighting in Iraq, 15 journalists

and media workers died and two are still missing. Accidents killed some, but most

died in combat.

During the 1991 Gulf War, no journalists died in the actual liberation of Kuwait,

but in the aftermath, four freelancers were killed. Last year, in Afghanistan, eight

journalists died in a two-week time span. At one point in that war, media

casualties outnumbered military deaths. Ninety-four media workers and journalists

died in the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s. Some 60 journalists died during theVietnam War and the fighting in Cambodia.

Recently, the new system of embedding journalists in military units - in which

journalists are attached to a military unit in the field - has given the press more
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/resources/news-and-in-focus-articles/all-news/news/vienna_meeting_to_launch_implementation_of_un_action_plan_on_the_safety_of_journalists/http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/resources/news-and-in-focus-articles/all-news/news/vienna_meeting_to_launch_implementation_of_un_action_plan_on_the_safety_of_journalists/


17/31

access to the battlefield, and along with it, more exposure to risk. Some 700

journalists were embedded in coalition units.

The embedding system, however, has also been criticized. Just after the war

began, the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), among others, protested againstthe differences between the treatment of journalists who were embedded and

other reporters seeking the war on their own.

New systems, new risks

Journalists have some international protection. Under the Geneva Convention,

journalists are to be treated as civilians in times of conflict; harming or killing

them is a war crime.

Yet some journalists believe the new types of war - and war coverage - may blurthe line between civilians and combatants, unless opposing forces are close

enough to tell who is shooting pictures rather than bullets.

Economics are also taking a toll. Some media organizations, in a bid to save

money, use freelancers or stringers, as opposed to full-time staff. While

employers definitions and treatment of freelancers vary considerably, some

freelancers may not have insurance as part of their fees, or a supply of ready cash

to buy their way out of trouble.

Commonly, but not exclusively, stringers and freelancers are also often younger,less experienced journalists. Many are keen to get scoops which can make their

names - but sometimes this can come at great cost.

Data and anecdotal evidence from various conflicts seem to indicate that a

considerable number of injuries and deaths occur among journalists working on

temporary contracts.

Fighting for survival

In the late 1980s, the question of journalists safety came to the forefront in the

trade union movement. Spearheaded by the Dutch Union of Journalists (NVJ), aworldwide action programme was launched by the International Federation of

Journalists (IFJ) to reduce the risks which journalists face when covering armed

conflict.

It published a safety guidebook, investigated insurance policies for staff and

freelancers, and developed safety courses with employers, including first aid

courses and training on the types of weapons encountered on todays battlefields.


18/31

The IFJ also insisted that media companies take their share of the responsibility.

Against the backdrop of the war in the former Yugoslavia, and with the death toll

mounting, the IFJ and its member unions pushed hard to create a tripartite

approach to the issue. Today, many IFJ member unions, in cooperation with

media companies and military authorities, have created intensive war preparation

training programmes for their members. Many media unions include the right to

safety training in their collective agreements. The IFJ and its members have also

strongly advocated equal benefits for freelancers.

In March of this year the IFJ, with support from the European Union, published a

comprehensive and in-depth survival guide for correspondents covering

conflicts. Live News: A Survival Guide for Journalists can be downloaded from

the IFJs. It includes information on equipment, training, precautions,

preparations, insurance, first aid, and post-traumatic stress disorders.

The IFJ has also championed the establishment of an International News SafetyInstitute (INSI). In partnership with the International Press Institute (IPI), a

publishers press freedom organization based in Austria, and with the support of

more than 80 media companies and press freedom groups, the Institute was

launched on 3 May of this year.

Objectives include developing safety assistance programmes in hot spots, setting

standards for safety courses and equipment (body armour, gas masks, chemical

suits, etc.), making sure that equipment is available for staff and freelancers,

raising awareness about the need for comprehensive training, and supplying safety

training materials to concerned companies and unions.The Institute will focus on all aspects of the safety and welfare of journalists and

media staff, including promotion of cut-price insurance schemes for freelance and

media staff, and promoting trauma and stress counseling initiatives to help media

staff cope with the pressures of reporting in difficult conditions, explained IFJ

Secretary General Aidan White.

But how much will this really help? In the end, covering armed conflicts is always

going to be dangerous. It seems from the statistics that the greater the access

journalists have to a war zone, the greater the number who die, but the better the

general public is informed.

TMedia companies and trade unions can chip away at the dangers through training

and preparation. But in the end, journalists, like truth, will continue to be

casualties of war.


19/31

Intense Training Prepares Journalists for War.When journalists from major media organizations head into a war zone, they

typically go armed with specialized training that could save their lives if something

goes wrong.

Many media companies now send their staffs to specialized war training classes to

learn basic survival skills and to raise their awareness of the different dangers they

might face.

During one "very intense" war zone training program designed for reporters, the

instructors emphasized such key points as staying calm during a crisis and

assessing the situation carefully, said Jean Fievet, 31, an ABC News assignment

editor.

"It certainly brought home the risks involved with reporting in hostile

environments," said Fievet, who recently completed a weeklong course near

London.

Training for War

Two of the best-known private firms that specialize in war training are Centurion

Risk Assessment Services and AKE Integrated Risk Solutions. Former members of

the British military run both companies. The Pentagon also offers a weeklong class

for journalists likely to be embedded with a military unit in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Some nonprofit organizations have also stepped in to offer low-cost or free training

in countries where there is conflict or violence against journalists.

ABC News sends its staff to Centurion Risk Assessment for a five-day course

called Hostile Environments and First Aid Training, which is held either in the

United States or England. Centurion prides itself on helping people save lives. Its

mission statement reads, "Danger knows no frontier, and press cards do not stop

bullets. Even with the best of training, journalists can become casualties."

The course teaches people to identify and evaluate risks to their safety and

security, whether the danger stems from disease and faulty hygiene, or land mines.


20/31

Students simulate a number of life-threatening scenarios, such as being taken

hostage, enduring captivity and crossing border checkpoints; the course also trains

students in how to use weapons. To make the training as relevant as possible, many

of the situations re-create actual incidents encountered by media and aid workers.

Centurion also uses theatrical pyrotechnics to re-create the nerve-racking roar of

machine-gun crossfire or mine explosions.

"The many scenarios, mostly held outdoors, were as realistic as possible," said

Fievet, adding that the instructors' specialized military training and their countless

hours in war zones with journalists added another dimenson.

ABC News correspondent Miguel Marquez, who spent a month in Iraq, agrees.

"Those scenarios are helpful, because they demonstrate how chaotic situations can

become," he said. "While there, one is always aware of the danger, and it's very

easy to get on edge about whether you're going to get caught up in something that

you can't control."

Rushing to the Scene

The staff understands a journalist's dilemma, Fievet said. Reporters have to cover

stories while also taking into account the risks to their personal safety.

"Be careful not to make a situation worse," Fievet said. One of the first scenarios

he participated in involved a man being shot by a sniper. "I charged out there and

the instructor informed me that I was putting myself in harm's way by doing that,

considering someone had a gun," he explained.

Like Centurion, AKE blends lectures and practical scenarios supported by video

footage and demonstrations. The interactive exercises test each student's retention

of the classroom information.

AKE's intended its five-day course, called Surviving Hostile Regions, for news

teams and individuals working in challenging or hostile areas.

"We aim to teach as much as possible about hostile environments," said Iain

Donald, head of risk consultancy and intelligence at AKE. The more context


21/31

individuals have, the more prepared they will be, since no two situations are ever

alike, he said.

He described the full-weapons lecture, which focuses on the strengths and

weaknesses of weapons so that if reporters in Africa see militia men with AK-47s,they will know the range and the risks involved.

Donald believes firmly in his company's training classes, adding that there is no

point going out in the field without being informed.

"Our approach is that everything has to be led by intelligence with specific training

and with a full array of the risks, he said.

In business since 1993, AKE has expanded its courses and designed area-specifictraining, with a new focus on Iraq.

Fievet believes his training was invaluable, adding that he learned the importance

of taking precautions at all times.

Marquez also points out that taking such precautions is a matter of course for the

military and people living there.

"What is amazing to realize," said Marquez, "is the fear of uncertainty that we feelis what Iraqis and U.S. soliders deal with every day."


22/31


23/31

Why War Reporters Go Solo, Despite The Risks

War correspondents have always been at the short end of the actuarial

tables. Life insurance salesmen do not pester them. No war is safe, and

no correspondent is bulletproof.

But the rules of the game have been changing, and the recent deaths in

Syria of two prominent correspondents, Anthony Shadid ofThe New

York Times and Marie Colvin, an American working for Britain's Sunday

Times, show how this line of work has grown even riskier.

One of the unfortunate truths of modern war reporting is that many

conflicts can only be covered by going solo on the rebel side, which

leaves a reporter even more exposed and vulnerable.

Historically, most wars were fought between national armies with well-defined battle zones. War correspondents often worked closely with one

army. In World War II and Vietnam, American reporters often wore

American military uniforms and traveled to and from the front lines with

U.S. troops.

Enlarge image

War correspondents traditionally covered conflicts by traveling with armies. Here,

Associated Press reporter Chris Tomlinson, (right) is shown with U.S. forces in
http://www.npr.org/2012/02/23/147290996/for-war-reporters-the-risks-of-going-solohttp://www.npr.org/2012/02/23/147290996/for-war-reporters-the-risks-of-going-solo


24/31

Iraq in 2003. But in many modern wars, reporters operate independently on the

rebel side of the fighting, which raises the risks.

John Moore/AP

This even carried over to America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, wherecorrespondents embedded with U.S. forces.

For the reporter, this meant access to the troops, the protection of their

superior firepower, relatively safe travel, and the promise of instant

medical care if required.

Different Kinds Of Conflicts

But most conflicts aren't like that anymore. In Syria, as with the other

Arab uprisings, government forces have been battling ragtag groups of

rebel fighters. And for a correspondent trying to cover this battle, there'sonly one real option go with the rebels.

That's where the story is, even if the risks are greater.

The Syrian government has generally tried to keep foreign

correspondents out of the country, granting only occasional visas to

journalists and providing brief, highly orchestrated tours that offered no

real insight into the state of the fighting or the mood of the Syrian

people.

In Syria, as with the other Arab uprisings, government forces have been battling

ragtag groups of rebel fighters. And for a correspondent trying to cover this battle,

there's only one real option go with the rebels.

In contrast, a reporter who links up with the rebels is a free agent, able to

go wherever his or her instincts lead. But they have to do so without a

safety net. Shadid and Colvin both entered Syria like smugglers, slipping

across the border with help of the Syrian opposition.

Colvin, 56, a war reporter for more than two decades, wore a black eyepatch, a constant reminder of a shrapnel wound in 2001 from Sri Lanka's

civil war. She was well aware of growing risks.

In a speech last year, she said, "It has never been more dangerous to be a

war correspondent, because the journalist in the combat zone has become

a prime target."


25/31

Shadid, 43 and a fluent Arab speaker, also understood the dangers. He

was shot in the shoulder in the West Bank in 2002 and was seized by the

Libyan army just last year.

Changing Rules

The Geneva Conventions of 1949 stated that journalists captured while

accompanying an army were entitled to the same protections as soldiers

and were effectively prisoners of war, noted Joel Simon, the executive

director of the Committee to Protect Journalists.

After the Vietnam War, the Geneva Conventions were updated and

modified to say that journalists working independently were entitled to

the same status as civilians.

"International humanitarian law has acknowledged that journalistsoperate in both capacities," said Simon. "But today, the predominant way

journalists cover wars is to go independently."

Enlarge imageNew York Times journalist Anthony Shadid often wrote about ordinary citizens

caught up in war zones. Shadid (center), who died last week in Syria, is shown

here talking to Egyptians in Cairo during the revolution that toppled then-President

Hosni Mubarak in February 2011.

Ed Ou/Getty Images
http://www.npr.org/2012/02/23/147290996/for-war-reporters-the-risks-of-going-solohttp://www.npr.org/2012/02/23/147290996/for-war-reporters-the-risks-of-going-solo


26/31

Drawn To The Front Lines

In Syria, both Shadid and Colvin were drawn to Homs, where the Syrian

military has been shelling civilian neighborhoods in hopes of crushing

the rebellion. It's an incredibly dangerous place to be, but it is precisely

the kind of places that Shadid and Colvin sought out throughout their

careers.

Both built their reputations telling the deeply personal tales of ordinary

people trapped in extraordinary conditions.

In Colvin's final story, published Sunday, she described the hellish scene

in Homs.

"They call it the widows' basement. Crammed amid makeshift beds and

scattered belongings are frightened women and children trapped in thehorror of Homs," she wrote. "Everyone in the cellar has a similar story of

hardship or death."

There is no way to get these front-line stories by traveling in a pack. But

it also means the reporter is extremely exposed.

Colvin and French photographer Remi Ochlik were killed when a shell

struck a house in Homs that the opposition was using as a makeshift

press center. Because the fighting has been so intense, her body remained

in Homs on Thursday amid efforts to find a way to send her remains

home.

Shadid spent a week in Syria, and was being taken out by Syrian guides

on horseback, because traveling the roads by car was considered too

dangerous. The horses apparently touched off a fatal asthma attack.

There were no medics to help, no helicopter to whisk him away. A

photographer working with him carried Shadid's body across the border

into Turkey.

Both Shadid and Colvin built their reputations telling the deeply personal tales of

ordinary people trapped in extraordinary conditions.

A More Dangerous World

The deaths only reconfirmed the fact that the Syrian fighting has been

particularly dangerous and difficult to cover. Western journalists have


27/31

been able to catch only occasional glimpses. Those who have ventured in

have stayed for only a few days.

As Western reporters struggle to reach Syria and other war zones,

coverage is increasingly supplied by local residents using social media.

In Libya, endless streams of tweets provided tidbits on the fighting last

year. In Syria, many have put their lives on the line to take video footage

and post it anonymously on YouTube.

Seven journalists have been killed in Syria since the uprising began

nearly a year ago, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. And

last year, 29 of the 46 journalists killed were in Muslim countries where

wars or unrest were taking place.

A quick scan of war zones, from Syria to Somalia to Afghanistan, shows

the world is not getting safer for journalists trying to report on theseconflicts. But it's a reminder of the risks Anthony Shadid and Marie

Colvin were never afraid to take.

Charter for the Safety of Journalists Working

in War Zones or Dangerous AreasThe safety of journalists working on dangerous assignments is not always

guaranteed, even if international law provides adequate protection on paper,

because warring parties these days are showing less and less respect for that law.News-gatherers cannot get assurances from belligerents that they will be fully

protected. Because of the risks they run to keep the public informed, media

workers, journalists and their assistants (whether permanent staff or freelance)

working in war zones or dangerous areas are entitled to basic protection,

compensation and guarantees from their employers, though protection must never

be taken to mean supervision by local military and governmental authorities.

Media management also have their own responsibility to make every effort to

prevent and reduce the risks involved.

The following eight principles shall apply:

Principle 1 - Commitment

The media, public authorities and journalists themselves shall systematically seek

ways to assess and reduce the risks in war zones or dangerous areas by consulting

each other and exchanging all useful information. Risks to be taken by staff or

freelance


28/31

journalists, their assistants, local employees and support personnel require

adequate preparation, information, insurance and equipment.

Principle 2 - Free will

Covering wars involves an acceptance by media workers of the risks attached and

also a personal commitment which means they go on a strictly voluntary basis.

Because of the risks, they should have the right to refuse such assignments without

explanation and without there being any finding of unprofessionnal conduct. In the

field, the assignment can be terminated at the request of the reporter or the editors

after each side has consulted the other and taken into account their mutual

responsibilities. Editors should beware of exerting any kind of pressure on special

correspondents to take additional risks.

Principle 3 - Experience

War reporting requires special skills and experience, so editors should choose staffor freelances who are mature and used to crisis situations. Journalists covering a

war for the first time should not be sent there alone, but be accompanied by a more

experienced reporter. Teamwork in the field should be encouraged. Editors should

systematically debrief staff when they return so as to learn from their experiences.

Principle 4 - Preparation

Regular training in how to cope in war zones or dangerous areas will help reduce

the risk to journalists. Editors should inform staff and freelances of any special

training offered by nationally or internationally qualified bodies and give them

access to it. All journalists called upon to work in a hostile environment should

have first-aid training. Every accredited journalism school should familiarise its

students with these issues.

Principle 5 - Equipment

Editors should provide special correspondents working in dangerous areas with

reliable safety equipment (bullet-proof jackets, helmets and, if possible, armoured

vehicles), communication equipment (locator beacons) and survival and first-aid

kits.

Principle 6 - Insurance

Journalists and their assistants working in war zones or dangerous areas should

have insurance to cover illness, repatriation, disability and loss of life. Media

management should take all necessary steps to provide this before sending or

employing personnal on dangerous assignments. They should strictly comply with

all applicable professional conventions and agreements.


29/31

Principle 7 - Psychological counselling

Media management should ensure that journalists and their assistants who so desire

have access to psychological counselling after returning from dangerous areas or

reporting on shocking events.

Principle 8 - Legal protection

Journalists on dangerous assignments are considered civilians under Article 79 of

Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, provided they do not do

anything or behave in any way that might compromise this status, such as directly

helping a war, bearing arms or spying. Any deliberate attack on a journalist that

causes death or serious physical injury is a major breach of this Protocol and

deemed a war crime.

Rewards versus risks for war zone rookies

an article for the BBC College of Journalism looking at why young journalists,

some with little or no reporting experience, are choosing to travel to the most

dangerous countries in the world in an effort to advance their career.

The title - Unprepared, inexperienced and in a war zone - was deliberately

provocative. But it seemed to strike a chord. The article was shared widely online

and provoked lively discussion on social networks.

Later this month, Ill be chairing a panel at the Frontline Club in London which

will examine the issues raised in the article. In many respects, the debate is

nothing new.

Journalists have long begun their careers in the worlds hot spots. Robert Capa was

in his early 20s when he took his iconic Falling Soldier photograph during the

Spanish Civil War. Age is no impediment to fine, sometimes even timeless,

journalism.

What has changed though is the news industry itself. Tighter budgets and a decline

in the number of staff jobs have made newsrooms more reliant on freelancers. Atthe same time the dangers facing journalists are greater than ever.

Ahead of the Frontline Club discussion, I canvassed opinions from a wide range of

international journalists, from rookies to veterans.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/blogcollegeofjournalism/posts/Unprepared-inexperienced-and-in-a-war-zonehttp://www.frontlineclub.com/on-the-media-unprepared-inexperienced-and-in-a-war-zone/http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/collegeofjournalism/events/2013/02/unprepared-inexperienced-and-in-a-war-zonehttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57559953/journalist-killings-up-42-in-2012-cpj-says/http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/blogcollegeofjournalism/posts/Unprepared-inexperienced-and-in-a-war-zonehttp://www.frontlineclub.com/on-the-media-unprepared-inexperienced-and-in-a-war-zone/http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/collegeofjournalism/events/2013/02/unprepared-inexperienced-and-in-a-war-zonehttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57559953/journalist-killings-up-42-in-2012-cpj-says/


30/31

The US writerCharles Glass summed up the current state of foreign news

reporting. The days of a specialist like David Hirst covering the Middle East

from Beirut for the Guardian for more than 30 years, during which he developed

his expertise, his Arabic and his contacts, are over, he told me.

There isn't a model to replace it, beyond daily decisions to cover big events as ifthey came out of nowhere. The void is filled by ambitious freelancers, some of

whom are good and honest; others of whom are neither, said Glass.

Most of the seasoned hands I spoke to were able to recount examples of ignorant,

culturally insensitive or even downright dangerous behaviour by junior colleagues

theyd met in the field.

Ive bumped into freelancers in Aleppo trying to make it without having done

much research or having much regard to safety, said the Daily Telegraphs

Middle East correspondent Richard Spencer.

To be frank, those very aspects of their professional behaviour made it unlikely

they would have much to offer journalistically. If you dont know what you are

doing, how likely are you to get a good story or picture?

Jan Eikelboom, a reporter for the Dutch current affairs programme Nieuwsuur,

agreed: It seems Aleppo has become a magnet for young, inexperienced reporters

and I find this a very worrisome development.

These kids are not only a danger to themselves, but also to the people whom they

work with. Who is going help the wounded driver if nobody in the team evenknows what a tourniquet is?

One Brazilian freelancer, Marina Darmaros, sent me a candid email just hours

after returning from Aleppo (pictured). The Moscow-based reporter described her

assignment in Syria as terrible and one which, in retrospect, she was totally

unprepared for.

In my opinion the Facebook era contributes to the fact that more of us are going

to war - we are all connected now, Darmaros told me. Maybe we all imagine its

safer than it really is, and thats why we go.

But, despite these concerns and criticisms, every fledgling correspondent I spoke to

stressed the same fundamental problem. They are in a Catch 22 situation,

desperately wanting to build a reputation in a market place where opportunities to

make an impression are few and far between.
http://www.charlesglass.net/http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/davidhirsthttp://nieuwsuur.nl/http://labalalaika.blogspot.com/http://www.charlesglass.net/http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/davidhirsthttp://nieuwsuur.nl/http://labalalaika.blogspot.com/


31/31

Experience is the issue, said Daniella Ritzau-Reid, an aid worker who is hoping

to make the move into journalism.

When faced with options such as returning to university or work experience at a

local paper, heading back to the field and having a go is far more appealing. At

what point do you simply have to jump in at the deep end?

Venetia Rainey, who currently works on the Daily Star newspaper in Lebanon,

criticised the double standards of some more established colleagues: I find it

unfair, although I understand the concerns, that older journalists who have secure,

regularly salaried jobs or else enjoy already established reputations see fit to lay

into [young journalists].

It's really, really hard to get into journalism these days. You can't expect people to

turn down opportunities that instantly put them on a foreign editor's radar.

You're never going to be able to stop young, aspiring journalists from going into

dangerous places and its frankly hypocritical for those a generation or more above

to frown on us for doing so, Rainey told me.

Former Fox News and CNN reporter Chris Kline put his finger on the dilemma:

There is no substitute for experience and theres only one way to get it, though

there are few apprenticeships quite as risky as front-line journalism.

role of reporters at war zone

Documents

Transcript of role of reporters at war zone