p.1 #1 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
I watched an episode of Situation Critical on National Geographic several months ago depicting the battle of Qala-I-Jangi, and one particular bit got me thinking. In an interview, ARD reporter Arnim Stauth talked about CIA operator Dave Tyson needing to borrow his satellite phone to contact coalition forces. Recalling this event, Stauth said (or implied, I can't remember) he was hesitant and in fact reluctant to do so because by providing Tyson with the sat phone it would directly affect the chain of events at the fort, thus falling out of line with journalism ethics.
Exactly how strict is this code? I understand that in his situation it was either his life or break the code, but what about the after? I don't watch German news, so I don't know if he made the story, but considering photojournalists have been fired for Photoshoping random individuals out or in to a frame, would it be common or even right for a reporter to release a story in which he played a role in afterwards? How appropriate is it for Stauth to cover a siege when it was his lending of the sat phone that allowed it to occur in the first place?
Take embed Michael Yon for instance. If providing assistance by lending a satellite phone were crossing ethical line, what would actually shooting at insurgents be considered? The first ever article of his that I read, IIRC, involved him taking a gun from a member of the squad he was attached to, then firing it into a room where the squad second in command was fighting hand to hand with an enemy combatant. I can't remember if he killed any of them, but nevertheless how different does that make him from the soldier who blogs about his day? Most certainly wouldn't consider the latter a journalist in any way, yet Micahel Yon is widely described as the most prominent freelance journalist embed in Iraq.. Would an international journalist embedded within the insurgents still be held with any regard if he picked up a gun in a firefight?
p.1 #2 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
The problem with photojournalism (my profession) that I see is the ambiguity in the rules.
A good rule for myself is to always strive to speak the truth. Regardless of what goes on around me... if im speaking the truth through my images then im fine. This includes never becoming the story. Just as you would never pose a person for a shot, you wouldn't want to change the story by becomming it. Does that make sense?
If the reporter refused to give the CIA Operations Officer the sat phone, would he be putting people in harms way? It's up to you and your own princples on that one in my opinion.
p.1 #3 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
Liak - if I remember correctly, the photographer and CIA operative were in grave danger and the call saved their lives as they were under heavy attack. The photographer did not actively engage the enemy, just provide a means for the operative to call in air strikes to allow them to get out of the serious jam they were in.
When it comes to saving your own life, I would think that it would be more important to get in to the gray area and bring back the story - otherwise you would just be a footnote.
p.1 #5 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
I'd like to think that rule number one in any industry is don't get your ass shot up. If the choice is get killed or get fired, guess which one I'm gonna pick?
p.1 #6 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
Nathan Whitchu wrote:
I'd like to think that rule number one in any industry is don't get your ass shot up. If the choice is get killed or get fired, guess which one I'm gonna pick?
Your principles? You'll be remembered Nathan when that day comes. Thank you.
p.1 #7 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
This kind of "what if" has been poised several times on Public Television panel shows.
Here is one: What if you are part of a jounalist pool aboard a US carrier. The captain tells you all that a SEAL team is about to be put ashore to carry out a covert mission to rescure American hostages known by reliable intelligence to be at a specific location. He tells you this because he's aware that being good journalists, you've probably already noticed increased activity--he asks you not to report the mission until after the SEAL team has recovered the hostages, at which time you'll get a full debriefing. What do you do?
Interestingly, one journalist--a highly celebrated one--said he would reveal the story ahead of time for the specific purpose of bollixing the mission. And he got agreement from everyone else on the panel, all of whom were well-known newspaper and television journalists. So much for the ethics of not being part of the story.
Here, though, is a question to ask about the ethics of a soldier: If protecting an embed reporter gets in the way of completing the mission (which, by definition, is a necessity of national security), do you sacrifice the mission to protect the embed? Do you sacrifice your teammate to protect the embed? Do you even risk the mission, your life, or your teammate's life to protect the embed?
You see, the embed is part of the story, always, regardless which side he's embedded with. It's the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle played out in living color. Your body being there, in the way, part of someone else's concern, changes the equation. What you report is what happens despite and including the changes your presence creates.
If a soldier is wounded and you paused to put pressure on his wound until the medic got there--resulting in a life saved that would otherwise have been lost--report that, and your role in it.
If you sat there and just took pictures of the man bleeding to death, with the medic shouting "Put pressure on his wound until I get there!" then report that, too.
p.1 #8 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
RDKirk wrote:
Interestingly, one journalist--a highly celebrated one--said he would reveal the story ahead of time for the specific purpose of bollixing the mission. And he got agreement from everyone else on the panel, all of whom were well-known newspaper and television journalists. So much for the ethics of not being part of the story.
Do you have more information on this (like why he would want to do that?), or pointers to online references?
p.1 #9 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
Imagine this situation which happened with a friend of my father's in Afghanistan many years ago. He was a Russian journalist who had developed a relationship with a leader of the Mujahideen prior to the Soviet-Afghan war (1979-1989). He was with them in 1982 when they planned and carried out an ambush of Soviet troops. He considered himself a partriotic Soviet, but did nothing to warn the Russians or stop the attack.
When he spoke of this to my dad in the early 1990s he still struggled with his choice to do nothing even though as a journalist he felt is was correct not to impact events.
You could argue that just by being there he impacted events.
p.1 #10 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
invalid2 wrote:
Do you have more information on this (like why he would want to do that?), or pointers to online references?
This was part of a PBS series from the late 70s and early 80s (pre-web). On that particular program, I recall Daniel Schorr being on the panel.
A later panel included Peter Jennings who was asked a question about the same situation Nathan Lake just related. Jennings (who had reported from Vietnam) said that he would not have let an American squad walk into an ambush if he had the ability to prevent it--which drew a lot of fire from the rest of the panel, but each person has to decide how to sleep at night.
p.1 #11 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
There are good journalists who are trying to report the facts but there are also activist journalist who are anti-US and/or anti-military or reporters who are trying to further their career by looking for hit pieces or by reporting secret activities. The former is what a journalist is supposed to do. The latter is bad journalism and one of the reason why the traditional news outlets are losing readership/viewership daily because most people don't like slanted reporting.
p.1 #12 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
Why the military puts added risk on their soldiers by allowing civilian journalist to tag along is a step in the wrong direction. If a journalist wants to cover the conflict-fine, they should go for it on their own. However, expecting the military to bring these untrained personnel along and watch over them is a risk they shouldn't have to deal with. If a journalist or news organization wants to cover a war, they should be prepared to deal with the consequences when things go wrong, and not rely on the military to keep them safe.
p.1 #14 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
Reporters need to remember the Pledge of Allegiance. It is a pledge by an American citizen to the flag of the United States. It is not a pledge to a journalism style that seeks to be completely aloof from being an American first of all, then a reporter.
The NY Times announced a major scoop several months and revealed how the US was financing the war against insurgents. The Times and our enemies loved it!
A North Vietnamese general, in his recently-released autobiography, said that the American media changed the course of the war by reporting on the American bombing in the North. Those reports so incensed US citizens that they demanded that the bombing be stopped -- and eventually led to US retreat. The general said the North Vietnamese were ready to surrender, and then the bombing stopped.
The reporter cannot be neutral. If I were in a gun battle, I would not want a reporter broadcasting my actions to the world, including an enemy who is shooting at me.
Reporting on the progress of armed conflict is totally different than reporting on the progress of a basketball or baseball game. Lives are at stake in war; a reporter must be a citizen first and a reporter second.
p.1 #16 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
A North Vietnamese general, in his recently-released autobiography, said that the American media changed the course of the war by reporting on the American bombing in the North. Those reports so incensed US citizens that they demanded that the bombing be stopped -- and eventually led to US retreat. The general said the North Vietnamese were ready to surrender, and then the bombing stopped.
The reporter cannot be neutral. If I were in a gun battle, I would not want a reporter broadcasting my actions to the world, including an enemy who is shooting at me.
Well, I don't quite agree. Every man in my family has been military for over a hundred years (from the Spanish-American War). My father was in combat in both the Korean War and the Vietnam War. I spent 26 years in the military myself.
That said, I don't expect and don't want the media to be a propaganda arm of the government. I want them to tell the truth and all of the truth.
To be sure, there may be some tactical considerations to be made, such as not divulging details of an operation until after the operation has been accomplished. But those are easy to deal with, and in fact, have been dealt with by embedded reporters since at least the Civil War.
During the Persian Gulf War, I had no problem at all with Peter Arnette reporting the results of US bombing in Baghdad. I had a hand in directing that bombing, and I was gratified to see that Peter generally had nothing incriminating to report (there was only one bad accident--compared to the inaccuracy of bombing in Vietnam, we'd have to be God to have done any better in Baghdad), especially because I knew he would have reported the worse if he could.
With regard to the bombing in Vietnam and that general's comments, I have zero problems with it. If a war is being conducted in a way that the US people can not support, then they need to learn of it, and it needs to stop. If the circumstances of a war is causing our soldiers to commit acts our people cannot contenence, then they need to learn of it, and it needs to stop.
As a soldier, I don't want to be out there doing something my fellow countrymen will later condemn me for. If I'm doing wrong, tell me sooner rather than later. I certainly want them to know what I'm doing--within tactical limits.
p.1 #17 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
RDKirk wrote:
Well, I don't quite agree. Every man in my family has been military for over a hundred years (from the Spanish-American War). My father was in combat in both the Korean War and the Vietnam War. I spent 26 years in the military myself.
That said, I don't expect and don't want the media to be a propaganda arm of the government. I want them to tell the truth and all of the truth.
To be sure, there may be some tactical considerations to be made, such as not divulging details of an operation until after the operation has been accomplished. But those are easy to deal with, and in fact, have been dealt with by embedded reporters since at least the Civil War.
During the Persian Gulf War, I had no problem at all with Peter Arnette reporting the results of US bombing in Baghdad. I had a hand in directing that bombing, and I was gratified to see that Peter generally had nothing incriminating to report (there was only one bad accident--compared to the inaccuracy of bombing in Vietnam, we'd have to be God to have done any better in Baghdad), especially because I knew he would have reported the worse if he could.
With regard to the bombing in Vietnam and that general's comments, I have zero problems with it. If a war is being conducted in a way that the US people can not support, then they need to learn of it, and it needs to stop. If the circumstances of a war is causing our soldiers to commit acts our people cannot contenence, then they need to learn of it, and it needs to stop.
As a soldier, I don't want to be out there doing something my fellow countrymen will later condemn me for. If I'm doing wrong, tell me sooner rather than later. I certainly want them to know what I'm doing--within tactical limits.
p.1 #19 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
jcw1982 wrote:
Why the military puts added risk on their soldiers by allowing civilian journalist to tag along is a step in the wrong direction. If a journalist wants to cover the conflict-fine, they should go for it on their own. However, expecting the military to bring these untrained personnel along and watch over them is a risk they shouldn't have to deal with. If a journalist or news organization wants to cover a war, they should be prepared to deal with the consequences when things go wrong, and not rely on the military to keep them safe.
With all due respect, I don't think you get it. The military prefers embeds over independent journalists, because embeds soon gain a certain stake in the military's cause. They relate more with the troops they're covering and tend to be far less critical. If half the battle in a democracy is winning the public support, this makes absolute sense from a top-brass perspective. Frankly, protecting a few embeds is worth the added risk to individual units in terms of the broader strategic goals--again, from a command perspective.
Not saying I agree, but it's the reality.
Also, independent war correspondents would be far superior, but a combination of cost-cutting on the part of media conglomerates and willingness of the government to take on more embeds has completely undermined that possibility. It's a win-win situation for military command and big media, and a lose-lose situation for concerned citizens.
p.1 #20 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
Human being first, profession second?
We know that according to the Geneva Convention and International Law 'I was just doing my job' or 'I was just following orders' is no excuse whatsoever. Why should journalistic ethics be in any way above that? Why would journalistic reporting which directly caused deaths be any different to murder and liable to being prosecuted as such?
There seems to be some great god in the sky which the western world worships called 'The Freedom of the Press'. However given that the only reason why there should be any truth to that statement is based on the true objectivity of the press, a joke at best, methinks that far too much honour and respect is given to a principle that should and probably would not stand up as a defense in any court of international law.
I hope to live to see the day when the media moguls are the ones put up for trial for war crimes....
You'll be remembered Nathan when that day comes. Thank you.