Journalists Under Fire

**The Fish** · May 29, 2006, 12:26 PM

People on both sides of the political spectrum seem to love maligning the press, mostly because both sides feel their particular viewpoints are being shortchanged. Media bashing has become a favorite political pastime, because it's much easier to blame the BBC and CNN for, let's say, screwing up Iraq than it is to actually sit down, analyze the actual mistakes made, and correct them with radical policy changes. The truth is, though, the a lot of journalists are very brave people who are willing to put themselves in extreme danger to keep the rest of us informed. Case in point:

Originally Posted by BBC

Two British journalists working in Iraq for US news network CBS are among some 40 people killed in a day of bomb attacks in and around Baghdad. Cameraman Paul Douglas and soundman James Brolan died when a roadside bomb hit the US military unit they were accompanying in the Iraqi capital.

CBS correspondent Kimberly Dozier, who previously worked for BBC World Service radio, was seriously injured.

A US army officer and an Iraqi interpreter died in the same attack.

The CBS team was accompanying soldiers of the 4th Infantry Division.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5027908.stm

I would say that the people who put themselves in visceral danger to report the truth (whether they accomplish this completely or not) are just as brave as the soldiers who do the actual fighting. Do people agree?

**Erik** · May 29, 2006, 01:19 PM

Front line war journalists are as brave as soldiers, I agree.

I don't always agree with the way they report, especially those embedded "journalists" (I don't even like to call then journalists because they only write down what the army tells them to).
But they are still very brave (and in some cases a bit stupid) to put themselves in so much danger, even if it's just for propaganda.

**Logue** · May 29, 2006, 01:28 PM

You pays your money, you takes your chances.

I think reporters could help keep soldiers in check since they will be filming things almost consantly, but i think the troops would treat them as a burden.

**Keresztes** · May 29, 2006, 01:29 PM

It isn't the cameramen and correspondants in the field whom I dislike. They believe in getting the facts, and are willing to risk their lives for those facts. I really respect that. It is the people in the newsroom and board meetings that I have a problem with. It isn't that they are too liberal or conservative, or whatnot. Its more like they have degraded the news from reliable and trustworthy information into entertainment. They don't report the facts to you. They entertain you with what might be facts.
UGH.

**The Fish** · May 29, 2006, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Keresztes

It isn't the cameramen and correspondants in the field whom I dislike. They believe in getting the facts, and are willing to risk their lives for those facts. I really respect that. It is the people in the newsroom and board meetings that I have a problem with. It isn't that they are too liberal or conservative, or whatnot. Its more like they have degraded the news from reliable and trustworthy information into entertainment. They don't report the facts to you. They entertain you with what might be facts.
UGH.

I agree completely. The correspondents who go out and actually gather the information do so in a (mostly) laudable way. The problem is that by the time it gets out on the airways, it has usually devolved into "info-tainment." Rather than actually delve deeply into stories and examine their causes and results, modern news is sound bites. I guess this is a result of a cultural sea-change, though. The news corporations are simply giving the public what it wants, and the public seems to not care about deconstructing issues; it simply takes too much actual thinking.

**Erik** · May 29, 2006, 02:32 PM

There are also news sources available who don't filter what the journalists in the field report, and who show good in-debt discussions with experts.
In the end it's just what you, the "news consumer" chooses to watch.

**Drunken** · May 29, 2006, 03:15 PM

I would have to agree that the journalists are almost as brave, if not just as brave as the soldiers. Maybe not quite as brave in that they dont actually do the fighting and therefor tend to do nothing but film streets with a tank driving down, rather than being in fire fights.

They are remarcably brave though, and its a special sort of person who volunteers to do that and go into a warzone without needing to and without a weapon (though they may be armed or atleast have guards).

**Tom Paine** · May 30, 2006, 10:35 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5029078.stm

CBS News said they were brave "veterans of war coverage".

Brolan, born in London, was a soldier in the Royal Green Jackets from 1983 to 1988.

He [Douglas] had worked for CBS News in many countries, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Rwanda and Bosnia, since the early 1990s.

Dozier is the recipient of three American Women in Radio and Television (AWRT) Gracie Awards for her radio reports on Middle East violence, Kosovo and the Afghan war.

It appears journalists are definitely as brave as soldiers... in some cases having at one time been soldiers, or having reported on many and various conflicts; those are the three referred to in the article heading this topic.

**Farnan** · May 30, 2006, 10:44 AM

An American soldier died also, as did 37 Civilians, but as they are not as important as journalist I'll guess you'll never talk about that...

**Tom Paine** · May 30, 2006, 10:46 AM

American soldiers signed up for that is the main reason we won't talk about it... the other being that if we talked about every American soldier who died we'd never stop. I'm just giving what is covered, but I'm not looking at British soldiers either; just nonmilitary personnel who volunteered to go into a combat zone.

**Farnan** · May 30, 2006, 10:50 AM

I'm just saying that you have to remember they weren't the only casaulties...

What needs to happen is that journalist who imbed in the unit must first pass basic or boot camp (depending on whether they imbed with Marines or Soldiers), then pass a journalism school which will teach them basic soldiering and battlefield survival. They must also sign a contract saying they will not reveal any classified information or troop movements. If they violate the contract they are forever barred from embedding in units, and face Federal charges. Any journalist that chooses not to imbed but still wants to cover the war must undertake both schools and sign the contract if they wish American protection.

**Tom Paine** · May 30, 2006, 10:56 AM

Farnan, one of those journalists was ex-military; I don't think we can say that the journalists caused the deaths at all.

The CBS team were outside their armoured Humvee jeep when the bomb went off.

"It wasn't a roadside bomb it was a car bomb," Aliah Git, the executive editor of CBS Radio News, told the BBC.

"All we're being told is that they'd been stopped, the convoy, and gotten out of their vehicle due to something described only as a curious incident.

"They were wearing protective gear and a nearby car exploded."

So basic training and similar really wouldn't have helped at all. And in fact it seems that all journalists are in danger there; and that they are in a lot of danger:

Iraq is considered the most dangerous country in the world for journalists.

Nearly 100 journalists have been killed in the country since the start of the 2003 US-led invasion. The latest deaths bring to 20 the number who have died in 2006.

**Farnan** · May 30, 2006, 10:58 AM

I mean in general, journalist get shot at and the like, and Coalition soldiers have to protect the journalist and put their lives on the line.

**Tom Paine** · May 30, 2006, 10:59 AM

I think more journalists have died as a result of IEDs and being captured than from crossfire in combat situations...

**Farnan** · May 30, 2006, 01:42 PM

Well being captured, military training could help with that, along with convincing the idiotic journalist who go alone that it is not an idea, it also helps with procedures to do when IEDs are discovered or there are potentional IEDs

**Tom Paine** · May 30, 2006, 02:08 PM

There are always potential IEDs and in this situation it was a carbomb; and of course they have to go out on their own for reporting anything but the soldiers' perspective!

**Farnan** · May 30, 2006, 02:09 PM

Yea, but then we can't be held responsible for thier safety, the same as the cops can't be held responsible if a journalist is killed covering the gang fight between the Crips and the Bloods.

**Tom Paine** · May 30, 2006, 02:11 PM

They can still be held responsible for allowing the situation to go so far; and of course the military are not being held responsible by anyone for the deaths of these journalists, not in this thread nor in the news.