For a few weeks now, you may have noticed that I have a photo and link in my signature to information about Alan Johnston, the BBC's Gaza correspondent who has been kidnapped by unknown forces, thought most likely to be militant Islamists. One group claims to have kidnapped him. Another claimed to have killed him.

<Please click on the link on Alan's Photo to go to the BBC website and find out more details about him, and about what's though to be happening.>

The current situation seems to be that he is alive, but in the quagmire where Palestinian politics meet Islamic gangsterism/terrorism, that may not be the case.

Some of the coverage of Alan's case mentions that 2006 was one of the worst years on record for the the murder (or other killing) of journalists during the course of their duties - this despite the modern Western practice of "embedding" journalists with friendly forces. (Fewer journalists were killed in Vietnam, pro rata the length of the conflict & size of deployment.)

<Here is a useful link for background reading - Committee to Protect Journalists>

It seems that, where in the past enemies of the West could see a point in allowing access to foreign journalists, now they are seen as fair game. Also, governments around the world, especially (but not exclusively) those outside the West, seem more prepared to persecute, imprison or murder journalists in recent years, over and above "anyone who asks too many questions".

One nugget from the CPJ website's FAQ page stuck with me:

Questions for debate:

Is there an upsurge in crimes specifically targeted at journalists, or are old barriers against harming them crumbling? Or is this press paranoia?

Do you agree with the CPJ that journalistic freedom is synonymous with press freedom, and that press freedom is the foundation stone of most other freedoms?

Or is all fair in love & war, so journalists who can't stand the heat should get out of the frying pan?
<Question not for debate - is this a new record for the number of metaphors being mixed in a single debate question?>

The press reporting about themselves is often quite weird. Clearly the enemy see no reason not to kill journalists. See also Daniel Pearl.

Ultimately the only people who should be off limits in a war are civilians and medics. Journalists should not be embedded. If they want to report the war they need to do so at their own peril. I'm sure Markos Moulitsas Zúniga would agree.

Again the press singing their own virtues isn't particularly stirring.

Why would Kos agree? Journalists aren't mercs beholden to the highest bidder.


If you're speaking about the U.S. media, I'm not particularly stirred, either, as it could be argued the modern press doesn't fulfill its First Amendment obligations.

But to answer the second question, a free press is absolutely necessary for a functional democracy. Without reporters investigating the claims of political and economic elites, instead of repeating their claims like a free ad agency, the people will believe whatever the elites claim. Without reporters investigating the government, we end up in Iraq.

BA, I think you are being shortsighted. War correspondents, including perhaps our most famous, Ernie Pyle, Click Here have been and are important in the public’s ability to know what is going on.

What’s the option, Cheney visiting the Green Zone, and admitting he relies on “reports” ? Will he once again go on Rush Limbaugh to let the faithful know what is happening in Iraq?



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18564433/

Ah, the same “bravery” we saw in the Vietnam era when this "chickenhawk" got all those deferments.

I don't like blanket statements, but I'd lay odds that every journaiist who has gone to Iraq, including CNBC's Michelle Caruso Cabrera, who volunteered, were well aware of the potential dangers.




I can't believe you were so bold as to link us to something Michelle Malkin wrote.



There were over 100 comments that page. I doubt the Daily Kos endorses every comment made on its page any more than does. As the saying goes, "another day another smokescreen from the right."

Off topic, but...


If you Ctrl-F "screw them" you come across Kos's comment:

Every death should be on the front page. Let the people see what war is like. This isn't an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush's folly.

That said, I feel nothing over the death of mercenaries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.

I don't disagree with him.

Thanks for providing this info Lesly.

The comment on KOS has no apparent connection or relevance to journalists.

Perhaps BA would be so kind as to clear this discrepancy up.

Is there an upsurge in crimes specifically targeted at journalists, or are old barriers against harming them crumbling? Or is this press paranoia?

I think there has been an upsurge primarily because people have discovered that kidnapping journalists gets them much more notice and extended in depth coverage than kidnapping, say, a tourist. Why? Because it hits the media where it hurts... and the media goes the extra mile for one of its own. This is not a bad thing, per se, nor do I think that shouldn't be the case... however, it should be acknowledged at least as a possible reason for such an upsurge.

Do you agree with the CPJ that journalistic freedom is synonymous with press freedom, and that press freedom is the foundation stone of most other freedoms?

Well, kidnapping or arresting a journalist because of what they cover is an extreme form of censorship. I doubt, however, that Johnston was kidnapped because of what he wrote. It is more likely that he was kidnapped simply because he was a high profile journalist.

Or is all fair in love & war, so journalists who can't stand the heat should get out of the frying pan?

Being a war correspondent is inherently dangerous and Johnston, himself, acknowledged the risk of continuing to report there. Every effort should be made to free Johnston, but this is different than offering special protection.

Is there an upsurge in crimes specifically targeted at journalists, or are old barriers against harming them crumbling? Or is this press paranoia?

None of the above. The radical Islamist thugs don't care if you report the news, drive a truck, flip eggs or carry a weapon. All non-radical Islamist thugs are targets, and there are no barriers. These people are equal-opportunity thugs (EOTs).

Do you agree with the CPJ that journalistic freedom is synonymous with press freedom, and that press freedom is the foundation stone of most other freedoms?

Freedom of the press is one of the most important things in a free society. I'm not willing to make it the most important freedom though. However, I don't know what the most important freedom would be outside of situational context. The freedom to assemble might be the most important when the mainstream press is lapping the boots of the powers.

Or is all fair in love & war, so journalists who can't stand the heat should get out of the frying pan?

Don't count your chickens before the fat lady sings, that's what I say. Life is tough, and it's tougher when served up cold. Mixing metaphors is like a fish riding a bicycle.

Seriously, being a journalist in a war zone carries with it a severe danger of capture and/or death. Being anything else in a war zone carries with it the same level of danger. It's a war zone. There aren't any rules except in the movies and comic books that pass as dime novels these days.

Those who do this for honor/country have my greatest sympathies. Then come those who do it because it's part of the job, followed by those who do it because the pay is good, then those who do it out of ignorance. But they all get sympathy because it's a very bad, extremely bad, bad bad thing. I don't know what's worse, getting beheaded or gut shot, or getting hit by an IED or atomic bomb. Maybe the worse thing is surviving.

I have heard that, but the other side can't join in the debate. Not directly, anyway.

The bottom line in this case is that I admire journalists who go into war zones voluntarily, especially since journalists know, or should know, what they're getting into. These people tend to be readers and listeners. I'm not so sure about the teen-aged recruits. There are a few older folks that I have my doubts about too. Pretty much all vets know what it's about, and some go back in because they like living on the edge.

Ah, and there you go. There's something in us that likes war. It's probably the same thing that can't handle peace. Maybe it's the fish riding that damned bicycle, counting chickens before the fat lady scarfs down cold reality. And then what, chokes instead of singing?

Is there an upsurge in crimes specifically targeted at journalists, or are old barriers against harming them crumbling? Or is this press paranoia?

I do think that there is an upsurge in crimes targeting journalists, and I don't believe it's an equal opportunity situation, though I do agree with AM that these terrorists seem to be equal opportunity thugs. But there is always some method to their madness. In this case, groups have found that they can benefit from journalist abductions, as some governments offer substantial sums of money for the prisoners' release (Segrena), or a hostage swap (for instance, 5 Taliban were exchanged for one Italian journalist in Afghanistan). In response to the second, Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen told reporters while in Kabul that “When we create a situation where you can buy the freedom of Taliban fighters, then in the short term there will be no journalists anymore.” It's not so hard to understand. On the plus side, abductors stand to gain (also through increased press coverage as entspeak mentioned above), on the minus side, there doesn't seem much to lose.

Do you agree with the CPJ that journalistic freedom is synonymous with press freedom, and that press freedom is the foundation stone of most other freedoms?

Yes, but most of these abductions take place in areas of little freedom in the first place. I'm not sure its the foundation stone, but it is up there.


Or is all fair in love & war, so journalists who can't stand the heat should get out of the frying pan?

Unfortunately, there isn't much that can be done. In a similar vein, one could say Doctor's without borders, or the ICRC should get out of the frying pan, and often they do when things get too dangerous. Unfortunately, (I've said it so much it sounds cliche to me) but remains true...laws are simply wishes on paper without the power of enforcement. A journalist can wave a badge or the Bill of Rights or various human/press international rights documents, and they will only serve for target practice. Anywhere the law is outgunned, brute thuggery reigns supreme.

Edited to add: I can't resist adding that there are also obviously more and less intelligent ways to act in a warzone. For rough instance, standing at the top of a building and pointing with binoculars while observing a firefight obviously isn't wise, as someone could mistake the journalist for a spotter. In the past, this has been met by histrionic international accusations of "press targeting".

Is there an upsurge in crimes specifically targeted at journalists, or are old barriers against harming them crumbling? Or is this press paranoia?

I don't know, but it strikes me that there are more reporters now than ever before, and furthermore, that the need for a constant flow of news prompts some journalists to ever more excessive feats of 'daring reporting'. I've seen various reports in recent years from journalists who have penetrated deep into area's where extremists rule and some of these have been successful where as others have ended up dead. I am reminded of the British photojournalist who was killed (presumably by Russian special forces) when the group of mujahideen he was travelling with were destroyed, or John Simpson of the BBC who was travelling with a Kurdish advanced unit which was accidently bombed by an American war plane. VIDEO In cases like these, I do not feel that the contribution to the common perception made by these journalists justifies the risks they take. The idea that we 'need to know' something which is already painfully obvious strikes me as absurd. Photographs of dead people, starving children, or stories from the mouth of a Taliban commander do not offer much which is 'news' and yet this is exactly what these men and women are being killed for.

There is also the added dimension that many of the recent global conflicts involve people who do not recognise the notion of any freedom of the media, or freedom of expression and thus see journalists only as a propagande tool. We saw this in Denmark last year as eveyone on this forum is probably aware. The irony I see is that many of the British journalistic elite refused to acknowledge the fundamental issue of the freedom of expression in the Mohammed cartoon controversy and yet will themselves use freedom of expression and freedom of the media as a justification for trying to interview Taliban leaders who may, or may not behead them. I spy a contradiction in the way much of the media in the west, especially in the anglophonic world, regards itself.

The furor surrounding the abduction of Alan Johnston is a good example of what I mean. The criticism from the British media against the cartoons is in marked contradition to the indignation against Johnstons kidnapping and yet the fundamental justification as to why these things happened at all is the same.


Do you agree with the CPJ that journalistic freedom is synonymous with press freedom, and that press freedom is the foundation stone of most other freedoms?

To a certain extent yes, but I feel that with freedom comes responsibility and I draw the line at any endeavour to bring news to the masses which puts lives in danger. Journalism should be used as a means to inform only within the context of common sense. There is nothing much in most of the stories I've read about dead journalists that justifies the risks they've run.

The extent to which our freedom is based on a free media can be measured in how free we are. Are we more free now than before the advent of CNN and other 24 hour global media corporations? Are we even more informed? Voter apathy in the anglophonic world suggests otherwise to the latter question, whilst the former is open for grabs.

I do not think I am more free due to the media, but I am more informed... the consequence of this however has led me to become more certain that civil war is coming to an ever more balkanized Europe for whilst the global media has given us access to more information, it has also given the jihadi's a global reach and promoted the internal divisions which are the end product of 'multiculture'.


Or is all fair in love & war, so journalists who can't stand the heat should get out of the frying pan?

Life does not rely on laws or fairness I'm afraid and what we human beings all consider moral and just is not always the same thing. Islam permits non believers to be killed and so any one who takes that to heart and acts upon it is not only a danger to western journalists, but also to all other westerners as well. Furthermore, because we human beings stupidly afford religion a sense of some importance, then we can neither blame these people for what the've done, nor question the morality of why they've done it for whilst we 'condem such acts of violence', the truth is our own morality grants theirs an equality which is not reciprocated.

In my opinion, any one who goes out of their way to interview a Taliban commander deserves no sympathy for getting their head cut off.

Discrepancy? The only discrepancy in my statement is your intentionally being obtuse. It is intentional; right?


Well in a way they are. (I went to college with the intention of being a Journalist so I'm not anti-journalism.) They aren't there for free, they have reasons that are related to their careers, compensation.

They don't really need to be there in the thick of things. I'm not advocating shadow wars where everything is a giant secret. I am simply suggesting that journalists are there of their own accord and do not deserve special protection. Much like mercenaries.

You have me thinking. I'm not sure how long it has been that we have expected the press to have some sort of protected status. Historically, haven't journalists traveling with the enemy traditionally been considered sources of propaganda? Could a press agent have traveled with the Nazi soldiers and expected immunity? He might have wished it so, but if found in the French forests by Maquis forces, he would have been summarily executed nonetheless. In fact, this whole topic makes me think. Where is the line between press freedom and propaganda? I suppose it must fall on the potential for casualties. Publishing anything that would jeopardize lives crosses the line. But, again that can be pretty nebulus as well.

I don’t know what it’s like in Denmark, but in the U.S., in spite of a growing number of news outlets there are fewer journalists today than there were in the 70s. Google a story and you might see the same story written by the same AP journalist showing up across America. Personnel are usually the biggest expense for business. This goes for the media, too. Why keep journalists around when you can syndicate?



Isn’t that the same thing that goes through the insurgents when they see journalists embedded with U.S. soldiers?

Exactly so. Do the insurgents offer embedded journalists special protections?

Journalists are civilians. Mercs... who knows. They don't have to answer to the UCMJ and thus don't deserve its protection when they decide to fire, and they're definitely not in Iraq in a civilian capacity. Are U.S. employees contracted to work in Iraq fair game? They're there for a living, too. If they are fair game, maybe those insurgents don't deserve such a bad rap. Maybe they just have a great entrepreneurial spirit kidnapping for ransom.


No, but I’d like to think we would not have spared a Russian assassin the trouble of capping Anna Politkovskaya had we found her on the “wrong side”, or you know, threaten reporters in general for doing their jobs. The line you draw, jeopardizing lives, could easily defend the actions of troops who seize pictures and threaten journalists when they’re caught on film screwing up.

I know the line is nebulous. Do you think journalists should be able to report anything? Troop positions for instance? No line should be drawn whatsoever? How about outright lies covered under the guise of "journalism"? Propaganda costs lives (Koran in the toilet, Radio Rwanda, et al). I think we owe the people we put into harms way more than that.

My underlying point being, I believe I was wrong to make the ICRC/ Doctors without borders comparison above. I wasn't thinking it through entirely. Regardless of the position a journalist takes in the field, and regardless of the fact that their observations are useful, they cannot report from any point of true objectivity. So, their opinions/observations will likely be tainted and cross the line into propaganda one way or the other. It isn't exactly like clubbing baby seals, or targeting some totally neutral humanitarian aid group. Doesn't mean I think we should target them. I do not, and we do not target them (I do believe our troops are justified in destroying photos which compromise their security in a warzone....sorry I must be a fanatic) but I understand why a terrorist, or "insurgent" group might consider them so.

No, no, and no, but I’m certain these examples are already covered by law.


No in the case of lies that could hurt and help the military.


I did not say less by pointing out that your line could be interpreted in more than one way.


Mrs. P, we need to shut down every media operation in Iraq, including the Pentagon’s “two dozen, mostly non-competitive contracts totalling 122.5 million dollars awarded by the defence department to three defence contractors that carried out media-related activities in Iraq after the invasion.” (Link) CNN, ABC, NBC, etc. reporters may not receive a paycheck from the government themselves, but as you said, they can’t be truly objective.


If serial Bush apologists are fanatics you’re right to apologize, since you use the same defense they use, security, to keep the blinds on the public about illegally spying on citizens in the home front. In Iraq’s case, the apologists tend to whine about negative coverage, ignoring the fact that reporters can’t leave the Green Zone without military assistance, or that Iraqi and U.S. officials ask them not to air information about completed public works for fear that insurgents will blow it up.

While I can easily agree journalists should not divulge things like sensitive operational information, I only hold them responsible for their own conduct, and not the conduct of our troops. By your truly objective standard, to balance the negative, like troops shooting on civilians, journalists would have to ignore stories that depict troops in a favorable light. They just can’t win either way.

I don't believe I advocated shutting journalists up, I simply said they run a risk in a war zone. A risk of which they are aware, in the interest of their story. This isn't the same as running a risk in the interest of bringing water and medical care to a village.

Again, I am not saying that they should be targetted, but I can see why they are. Because:
1) Some governments compensate them highly for those hostages
2) Some governments trade prisoners for those hostages
3) Press coverage increases when they take hostages
4) Potential propaganda source is either eliminated or used in a more beneficial (for them) way



Wow, I've certainly raised your hackles for whatever reason. Regardless, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't place words into my mouth and jump to outlandish conclusions based on nothing I've said, but what you seem to be inferring I must mean.

Edited to add: I just found an interesting piece regarding this very issue from the ICRC. It aptly addresses exactly the situations we are discussing here.

You linked us to a tainted source - Michelle Malkin - who linked us to nan isolated statement on Daily KOS that was about contractors, not journalists in Iraq. You know the old saying, "fight fire with fire." So, I guess it's fight obtuseness with obtuseness.

Edited to add:

This is the same Michelle Malkin I saw spend fifteen minutes trying to convince Chris Matthews that John Kerry intentionally shot himself to get another Purple Heart.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5765243/

Michelle Malkin will always be a tainted source in my opinion. While I don't always like the badgering of guests by Matthews, Malkin deserved every bit of wood Matthews laid on her right-wing behind.

I wouldn't have responded to your second post on this thread had you stopped at #3.


Hackles not raised. I thought I was obviously sarcastic. It doesn't surprise me that people doubt the media's worth and question their obligation to the public because, seriously? Journalism and celebrity journalism are not the same things, and we've had more the latter for 10+ years.

You said they run a risk in a war zone because of their profession. It's their profession that keeps them from earning "totally neutral humanitarian aid group" status. Well, sorry, I don't think public support should be limited to military personnel and totally neutral humanitarian aid groups. Your assigned risk to journalists is based on presumed bias, an excuse insurgents would use if kidnapping journalists, as you noted, wasn't a good way to get their demands met. Making sides look good/bad is not their responsibility. Omitting negative coverage can make a military presence look better than it is. I don't know how you think they have an obligation to forgo publishing negative coverage and then state journalists are targeted for their bias. It sounds like to me, you're not just acknowledging what insurgents are thinking, but you agree with #4.

Lesly, the ICRC seems to agree with me (the part I actually wrote, not what you have inferred here) in the link I provided above (though I added it while you posted so you might have missed it). And I don't recall suggesting that our military should be afforded specially protected status.



I agree with the above.



I also call 911 an act of asymetrical warfare, and I don't recall anyone jumping on me for that one. Doesn't mean I sympathize with the terrorists, or think 911 was justifiable. I do sometimes take a step back and try to view things. The link I provided from the ICRC acknowledges the problem created between the job of journalist and potential for abuse via spying and/or propaganda. And, I never stated that we should not permit journalists to print any negative coverage, I said we should not permit them to print something that compromises their security.

I missed the link.


Neither did I, Mrs. P. I was talking about public support, but:


I don’t disagree with their conclusion, but I disagree with this section. From a practical standpoint I doubt insignias could deflect bullets in an insurgency. If reporter status doesn’t mean anything in a nation state like Russia, why should it mean anything in a failing state like Iraq? Also, how do we make sure reporters aren’t spies when we pass out insignias—take the state at its word?

I disagree with the section because as an organization that does offer victim assistance, the ICRC has a vested interest in keeping an equivalent status for journalists off the table. Why not stick a spy in the Red Cross? Nobody will look there? Sounds like a perfect spot. Ever watched a video of a Palestinian militant driving around the West Bank in a Red Cross or a Palestine Red Crescent ambulance swerve, hop out and unload with an AK-47, then safely drive away, sirens blaring?

So while I agree that journalists shouldn’t have special status, I don’t think we should “understand” their value to insurgents because 1) they could be spies, or 2) they’re “biased”. Why should I say otherwise? When I clicked Yes on the poll question, the results of which I think you can see, I wasn’t necessarily saying journalists are worthy of extra protection or special protected status. I was saying journalists are worthy of extra concern. Not just for their own hides, but for our welfare as members of a society that depend on journalists in order to make informed decisions when we petition government whether they are covering politicians stateside or an insurgency and our military conduct overseas.


I’m not sure what that was about or if I had even signed up for when you made this comment. I won’t dwell on it too much because it will probably take the thread off topic, but I disagree with you. I’m not prepared to call 9/11 asymmetrical warfare unless I’m also prepared to call Fallujah asymmetrical warfare. I could be wrong but I think there is going to come a point when superior airpower will no longer be enough to grant the state Goliath status.


I’m fine with this as long as this as long as the same standards are used with civilians.

I'll ought to ask Jules what he ment by the topic poll questions, but I have inferred them to mean precisely what they said: "Worthy of extra concern or protection". Extra concern and protection, it would seem to me, implies that such protections go beyond those afforded to the average civilian. Certainly he can't be comparing them to the average protections afforded to combatants?

Questions for debate:

Is there an upsurge in crimes specifically targeted at journalists, or are old barriers against harming them crumbling? Or is this press paranoia?
There an upsurge of sorts, but it's not due to "old barriers" crumbling. There's simply a whole lot more Western journalists in risky situations in a culture that does not now, and never, had the barriers in the first place. There is also a certain element of paranoia at play. The press has an attitude of being elite untouchables, and are quite unhappy about the fact that much of the rest of the world disagrees with their perspective.

Do you agree with the CPJ that journalistic freedom is synonymous with press freedom, and that press freedom is the foundation stone of most other freedoms?
Yes, journalistic freedom is part and parcel of press freedom. No, it is not the foundation stone of most other freedoms.

Or is all fair in love & war, so journalists who can't stand the heat should get out of the frying pan?
Its not a question of "fair", its a question of the costs of freedom. Journalists who aren't willing to take the risks of paying the price shouldn't be yammering about their "rights", and they especially shouldn't be attacking those who are willing to take the risks.


<Question not for debate - is this a new record for the number of metaphors being mixed in a single debate question?> Off hand answer: not even close.


I'll answer more later, gotta go run errands.

Yes Mrs P, that's exactly what I meant.

Is there an upsurge in crimes specifically targeted at journalists, or are old barriers against harming them crumbling? Or is this press paranoia?

Personally, I think it's a mixture of all three. I think many of the most repressive regimes in the world are getting somewhat long in the tooth, and their populations a little more restive, so their leaderships are prepared to go that little bit further to hang onto power.

I think moif is onto something with his idea that some of the current epicentres of violence (mostly Muslim, but not exclusively so) seem to have a different enough value system, or just hate the West and all its works enough, that they don't much care what we think, so using our journalists to try to spread their message doesn't occur to them. (Their loss, I think.)

And in the modern world of 24-hour rolling TV news, and whole swathes of internet-savvy amateur investigative journalists-cum-bloggers, demand for and obsession with news, news gathering and news gatherers has left parts of the media with a vastly inflated idea of their own relevance and importance, and the sense that anyone who challenges what they do or how they do it is somehow persecuting them.

For a group of professionals that so dominate modern societies, and not just in the West, people in the media often seem to protest overmuch and play up the noble fragility of their position. Culturally, the BBC is as guilty of that as any other organisation (moif has that much right; I'm not going to rake over the coals of the Danish cartoons thing again, as it would neither achieve anything or be very relevant to the thread topic).

That said, a man like Alan Johnston, living and working in the Gaza strip, and reporting (as far as I'm aware from his BBC work that I saw, heard and read) honestly and fairly is doing a pretty noble and exceedingly fragile job.

Do you agree with the CPJ that journalistic freedom is synonymous with press freedom, and that press freedom is the foundation stone of most other freedoms?

To the first part yes, coupled with editorial freedom of course. To the second, I'm not sure if it's the foundation stone, but it's pretty close to the base of the tower. Without a free press, other freedoms can be violated with impunity and nobody gets to find out about it until it's too late, which is what the CPL are getting at, I reckon.

Or is all fair in love & war, so journalists who can't stand the heat should get out of the frying pan?

Like all points of principle, some people live by them and others abuse them for their own ends. Rummaging around in garbage bins for snippets of information can be noble when one is trying to uncover a government conspiracy, and it can be tawdry hackery when one is trying to dig up some dirt to smear some celebrity or suspect in a court case.

Persecution or plain shooing-off (politely or otherwise) of the journalists in the one case is vaguely sinister, while in the other it is not only understandable but perhaps even admirable.

That said, the common sight of a half-cut celeb taking a swing at the photographers that, the week before, they were posing in front of in furtherance of their career falls into the another pot - where the celebs themselves should be assessing the temperature of their domestic food preparation area with a view to leaving it if they find it uncomfortably warm. Or perhaps rueing at their selection of spoon with which to sup from the same bowl as

You meant to ask "extra concern and protection"? I read the poll question, "Are journalists worthy of extra concern or protection?", as asking just that, extra concern or attention.

I'm lost with the point. Extra concern how exactly? More news coverage and a bit more hand wringing?
Headline:Yesterday a suicide bomb killed 50 people and one journalist, too!

I looked up some background for the story you linked to on the confiscated photos, and there is a bit of context that is missed by the self-entitled "Fairness and accuracy" site. But once I perused the net, there was certainly a lot of coverage of this event! Much more than the GI who recently jumped on a grenade and saved dozens of people...that coverage can only be found on the very rare blog spot.

In the US, and I'm sure most of the first world, homicide sites are often immediately blocked off and journalist coverage limited because they might compromise investigations. Should this concept never apply in a warzone?

Also, you mentioned above that journalistic coverage is controlled under law and they should not be able to report anything and everything (like troop positions or outright lies), as though this were some foregone conclusion. Where is that stated exactly? I'd like to see that one. As far as I know there are no such guarantees. I can understand why the government in a wartorn area would shut down a media outlet that printed such material. Obviously if the papers and airwaves said, "Platoon 50 slaughtered a village and sank a Koran in the toilet!" There might be some consequential extra related violence (at least due to the Koran incident, maybe not the village).

What have I been stressing? That you need reporters. Is that statement so radical?

Too bad you're lost with the point. I would like to know what I voted for and change my vote if necessary. Is my saying we need reporters the same thing as saying we don't need a military and civilians, or am I simply taking note of apathy? Did I request more coverage? And what am I supposed to take away with your helpful larger text: that if 50 civilians and just one Marine die I'm supposed to feel better? What an asinine contrast.


I'm sorry to disappoint Mrs. P, but I did not post on this thread to solicit pity posts on behalf of reporters. The paraphrase Bernard Cohen, I already know that while the media is not very good at telling people what to think, it's quite good at telling people what to think about. Or that failure to find stories about the GI leads to the hostile media effect. You obviously feel the GI deserves some type of recognition, whether or not his story is covered, and I feel reporters should be appreciated for covering anything in both countries. Just so there's no confusion, by appreciation I don't mean they deserve to turn the cameras on themselves or we need to erect shrines in their honor.


Homicide sites are blocked to reporters unless a homeowner/tenet is present and grants the reporter access. More rarely, for whatever reason the forensic team isn't there yet and a reporter is asked to assist the police in some official capacity taking photos. These restrictions have to do with a right to privacy in the U.S. I don't know what, if any, international guidelines discourage taking pictures of war zone "crime scenes", nor why you bring up the subject.


Geraldo Rivera. Out of curiosity, where are you going with this? Are you suggesting that because there is no guarantee, you trust the Pentagon so much you're ready to let them censor the press?


I can understand why the military would not want journalists to print a story about the Koran, but I can't agree with the press self-censoring every time they think something they publish is going to result in riots.

The restrictions don't necessarily only apply to privacy rights. A journalist may permissibly record an arrest on a public street, or in a courthouse or police station, but the freedom to gather news at crime and disaster scenes may be limited if a law enforcement investigation or other official activity is still in progress. I'm not sure about warzones, but it seems to me that after a suicide bomb goes off and the area is portioned off, the journalists should not (unless permitted) traverse that area for photo opportunities. I would expect there are laws about this in Afghanistan as well, but I don't know of them. I didn't bring up the subject, you did in a prior post.

Edited to add: I'll address this too:

I don't know what you are saying, honestly. I myself haven't indicated that reporters are unnecessary or that we need to shut them up. In fact I've explicitly stated otherwise.

Reporters are important, but they are not entitled to special protections IMO (unlike the Red Cross) above and beyond those afforded the average civilian. Furthermore, I don't believe that they should be afforded extra concern beyond that afforded the average civilian. You have stated that you feel the word concern seems to be very important here and I'm not sure why. My example was intended to be illustrative. Yes, the loss of a journalist is awful, particularly since their job is difficult are dangerous. No, a journalist should not be afforded protections OR concerns exceptional to those afforded civilians.

You do not have a reasonable expectation to privacy in a public street. This includes taking pictures of a crime scene without crossing police tape.


According to accounts, two journalists breached the security perimeter, "but all those interviewed agreed that the interference with the media went far beyond just these two cases" in Afghanistan.


I did. You questioned the accuracy of FAIR's article. Do you disagree with E&P's article above?


Then may I ask how, after agreeing with you that reporters should not disclose information like war tactics and don't deserve extra legal protection, you "understand why the government in a war torn area would shut down a media outlet that printed such material"? I presume you're speaking about my Afghanistan example. Your support for a free press and the military's/government's "right" to censor the media are irreconcilable.


Afforded. That's a curious choice. To manage to spare or give up, to bear the cost. Is your support for the military or civilian victims going to decrease if you regard reporters similarly? When we debate abortion, do you think we're asking people to divide their sympathies by putting a spotlight on women's health?

No, I'm not speaking of the specific Afghanistan example, because no such instance occured, and no media outlet was shut down. I'm speaking of exactly the hypothetical I posed...the one you also indicated was already "against the law".



I didn't suggest we hold journalists in LESS regard than civilians or protect them less. I suggested that we hold them in the SAME regard. IOW, "similarly". In point of fact, that would go beyond the protections offered combat units. This wouldn't be much of a debate if the question was "should anyone care at all if journalists are killed and kidnapped?" I'd say it would be pretty unanimous. This exchange going on between us here is starting to make me think of two bald men arguing over a comb, or two anorexics arguing over a cookie, or something. Did I say I think journalists should be targeted? Not even close.

Julian:

Re Vietnam and now, well, first, my bad, since it isn't then and now, rather, it's some who don't respect for a moment the right of freedom of speech and of the press at least understanding public opinion in America and the West and not doing anything that might unduly bring that public opinion down on their heads. We called such souls the NVA/PAVN and its governing authority. In contrast, some others don't really understand us and don't even care to, their bad, and for them and not us, and so there is no compunction shown in regard to our sensitivities respecting freedom of speech and of the press. We see these souls on those videos also reporting something else about how Allah is great. The journalists otherwise take their chances, just like the rest of us. Re civilians, as I've said before, it depends on just which civilians we are taking about, and so if this is total war, then this is war on civilians as well, I mean, it was cousin Tojo who made the bullets, the guns, the bombs, and the planes for his uncle Tojo, yes? And if I take out the MRE plant and those making the MREs, then maybe my enemy can longer keep troops in the field standing against me lest they starve. So everyone who supports the war against me is fair game, and not just the guy with the gun in that foxhole or trench over there. And so the other consideration with respect to those fighting in Allah's name is that some see our journalists as part of our war effort and for that reason consider them fair game [as spies and informers, and as the late Michael Collins once remarked, there is no crime in detecting and destroying the spy and the informer among us during time of war]. Lastly, well, how do I say this. Have you ever read the late Dave Hackworth's About Face? That part when he recalls his conversation with his one commanding officer just at that moment when the disillusionment first begins to set in? The Army isn't what it used to be, he says. To which his commanding officer replies, it never was. So too here.


Lesly:

Journalists don't reveal our troop dispositions lest we shoot them. We'd be gracious enough to give them a warning following the first instance, but report on disposition again and, well, Michael Collins was correct, there is no crime in detecting and destroying the spy and the informer during time of war. So hopefully journalists understand that their forbearance with respect to the reporting of troop dispositions is more a matter of their personal survival than it is a matter of any nobility on their part. If not, sorry to have to burst their bubble of illusion.

Oh, sorry, almost forgot, but one of my "favorite" Irish patriots is Piaras Beaslai. In addition to his other claims to fame, he was also the official censor of the Irish Free State during the Irish Civil War [and so there was that list of prohibited publications]. Piaras performed his job admirably. And for more on Piaras:

http://www.pgil-eirdata.org/html/pgil_data...slai,P/life.htm

So the poet and playright turned censor during the Irish Civil War. There was otherwise nothing "irreconcilable", only the "struggle between competing values".

Mrs. P I don't know how to continue our exchange. You say censorship didn't take place with the military took and probably destroyed "evidence" of excessive force in Afghanistan and I'm not sure how to proceed if we can't agree on that. (You could simply mean that no media outlet was closed which I agree with respect to the Afghanistan example, but that's not how I read your reply.)


I would be amazed if you could burst anybody's bubble, KHT. I think embedded journalists not being explicit about troop locations has more too do with avoiding enemy fire than being executed by their own countrymen. Though you are free to believe fear and a lingering desire to sell out trumps common sense in dangerous situations.


That's great. What does the 1922 – 1923 civil war have to do with the passage of the 1976 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? I'm going to guess nothing and you mentioned your favorite Irish patriot so you could wax out loud about censoring the press.

I'm a day or two late posting this, but Alan Johnston has been released.

Apparently the new Hamas thugs - oops, sorry - leadership in Gaza thought it would be a handy way to get some brownie points with the wider world if they could secure his release. Though I dare say his captors were not sweet-talked into releasing him.

I'm not certain if it's a case of them being specifically targeted, as it is the case that the more recent conflicts are just that more dangerous. A good example of this would be what befell CBS News which was hit hard by the deaths of some of their colleagues in Iraq. Road side bombs don't choose victims and I honestly doubt it was the intention of the bombers to hit journalists. A great source to look at this a little more in-depth can be found here.

"Hacks" isn't the right term for this topic, it should be "heros" as they knowingly take a risk, but do so to shine the light of attention on things that would normally go unexamined.