The wikileaks video that shows the death of two Reuters journalists has brought forth a broad range of responses, to the incident in particular and what it means as part of the wider conflict that is occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yesterday Jeremy highlighted Andrew Bolt’s argument that the helicopter crew were blameless because the journalists were among a band of terrorists.
While Jeremy objected to the way that Bolt had labelled the people who ended up being fired on, that wasn’t actually what I found the most worrying thing about his attitude to this incident. While Andrew Bolt asks “Why were Reuters employees hanging out with terrorists?”, I ask “Where else should they be?”.
The discussion that I’m interested in has nothing to do with the right or wrong of the “Collateral Murder” incident, there’s plenty of discussion of that elsewhere if that’s what you’re interested in, it’s what role should journalist’s play when nations are at war.
My attitude about this issue is heavily influenced by the biography of the Australian combat cameraman Neil Davis. Davis is best known for his extensive coverage of the Vietnam war, shot almost exclusively alongside South Vietnamese troops rather than American or Australians. Davis’ attitude was that his responsibility was to remain neutral and report fairly and accurately and there is probably no better example of his commitment to this belief than his famous trip across the front line to film with the Viet Cong.
I wanted to film the other side in action, to hear what they had to say, to see how they lived, and to see the response they got from the people they were living with and fighting for. I did the same thing continually with the South Vietnamese, and I had sympathy with both groups. Each was fighting for their people, yet were ideologically diametrically opposed.
While with the Viet Cong Davis found himself under fire from a South Vietnamese helicopter, and then imprisoned briefly when he tried to cross back to the South Vietnamese controlled territory.
I don’t think they wanted to kill me. I got on very well with the South Vietnamese, and even after they found I had been out with the VC, they didn’t hold it against me personally. They knew it was my job, what I had to do.
Can there be any clearer distinction between the attitude of one of Australia’s greatest war correspondents and that espoused by Andrew Bolt?
But here’s what …. Reuters needs to explain: the Reuters men were in a group of Iraqis carrying AK-47s and RPGs, used to shoot down American helicopters:
…. Reuters needs to explain why its employees were embedded with terrorists, and how that might have affected their coverage.
It seems to me that the Reuters men were doing their job, what they had to do.
Journalism should never be about picking a side and acting as a cheerleader, the military machines of the world have shown themselves quite adept at producing propaganda on their own, journalism should be a search for truth, however unpalatable. That search for truth leads journalists into some awful places, both physically and emotionally, not just in the war zones around the world, but wherever human tragedy is unfolding. The search for truth led two Reuters journalists to their death and to question why they were on the front line is an insult to these men in particular and to the notion of objective journalism in general.
21 Comments
“Reuters needs to explain: the Reuters men were in a group of Iraqis carrying AK-47s and RPGs”
Reuters explained that back in 1997. I dug up a reference to an explanation on the reuters site in under a minute. I also easily found a correlating explanation from an independent journalist who is in no way anti-US or anti-troops. All informed sources agree that the journalists were independents who were attracted by the news and noise of an attack and were on their way to check it out – there was nothing sinister about it. Nobody disputes that. Did andrew take the time to look, then dismiss it and write the thread title anyhow? Did he not take the time to look? What’s a journalist to do anyway?
Someone on andrew’s site commented that this was the “lebanese ambulance” hoax all over again. I agree – it’s an appalling (and easily debunked) attempt to spin evidence to suit an agenda. And I think fox (and others) should give it up and admit that they don’t have a case.
‘Embedded ‘ is the key word here – you should be ‘safely’ within a military unit allowed to report on what you are permitted to see.
Here’s a nice example. I don’t think this guy was “hanging around with rioters”
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20100412-263727/Reuters-cameraman-among-dead-in-Bangkok-violence
I’m eagerly awaiting the demand that reuters explain itself.
“‘Embedded ‘ is the key word here – you should be ’safely’ within a military unit allowed to report on what you are permitted to see.”
I’d suggest that if a journalist is on the front line with any military unit, he/she is no safer than anyone else, particularly in the type of street battles that characterise urban warfare.
The point is that if journalists are on the front line in war zones it should come as no surprise that they occasionally get caught up in incidents such as these and are killed. It’s the risk they take.
“I’d suggest that if a journalist is on the front line with any military unit, he/she is no safer than anyone else, particularly in the type of street battles that characterise urban warfare.”
I don’t think that’s true. If you’re embedded, then you can at least assume that ONE side isn’t going to shoot at you. Of course, that doesn’t always apply (there are a couple of famous counter-examples). But most of the time it’s true. If it wasn’t, then there would have been no reason for journalists to embed.
Well it’s quite apparent what some people believe the role journalists should play in war. They should unfailingly report “our” view.
Oh yeah, that’s known as propoganda.
Good post. Neil Davis is one of my personal heroes.
The really disturbing thing is that Bolt post is that he has smeared the reputations of dead men who cannot defend themselves by implying that they might have had nefarious reasons for being where they were. I seem to recall the same criticism being made of western reporters in Baghdad during the invasion in 2003.
I sometimes wonder if Bolt really believes some of the things he writes, or whether he is a contrarian for the sake of it/page views.
“I don’t think that’s true. If you’re embedded, then you can at least assume that ONE side isn’t going to shoot at you.”
I probably should have worded my post a little more clearly Matthew, I meant they are no safer from fire from the opposite side to the troops they are embedded with — Monday morningitis
I sometimes wonder if Bolt really believes some of the things he writes, or whether he is a contrarian for the sake of it/page views.
I’d be inclined to think a little from column a and a little from column b
I used to wonder too, but I don’t any more.
It’s a very easy thing for Mr Bolt to smear journalists who literally put their lives on the line to uncover the truth when he appears to have no interest in doing either.
Matthew of Canberra, comment #5:
If you’re embedded with a military not American, this might be true. Given the US military’s penchant for firing on it’s own personnel, I’d be reluctant to make this statement.
I could be forgiven for believing that the US Military deliberately targets the media in war, they blew up the al Jazeera offices, you know, the ME based News gathering network that Bushy tried to claim were in bed with the terrorists, then there’s all the stupid wingnuts that believed him.
‘Safely’ was describing the type of information generated for the side of the embedding, not the journalists’ personal condition.
I think that someone hasn’t quite worked out the actual definition of Fair and Balanced yet.
I’m going to drop this link into both of our threads connecting to the Wikileaks video, because I think it’s an excellent article that relates to issues raised in both threads. Jacinda Woodhead at newmatilda:
The whole thing is worth reading.
I don’t have a problem with journalists embedding themselves with the other side. What I do have a problem with is bleating about it when it goes wrong. This incident is not the first incident of it going wrong. I have personal experience of the Della Casa/Maxwell murders. Three independent journo’s in 1991 after that ‘in-depth’ story sort out the PKK in the Kurdish mountains, and found them. We found Nick Della Casa and Maxwell butchered several weeks later. Rosanna (female,blond,fairskinned) never seen again. Later reported to have been killed by their guide but I know it was the PKK. They were there the day before the bodies were found.
You take your chances.
Looking at the video can everyone be certain which of the men are the journos and which not? Hard isn’t it? So what makes you think that in a fire fight our soldiers can tell the difference.
You take your chances.
{Removed – off-topic – Tobby}
So the fact that the Pentagon actively attempted to cover it up rather than being open and transparent about what occurred isn’t of interest, Osbourne?
I’m not arguing the rights or wrongs of the incident (I did that over on the Correction Demanded thread). My response was in regard to the role of journalists. They can do as they like, because they will anyway. I just point out that different situations carry different risks. They are big boys and girls and should understand the risks. I believe most do. Sometimes they get a great sory from a unique perspective and sometimes it goes wrong.
Osbourne, I agree that war correspondents know that they’re taking their chances when they enter a combat zone, especially when they cross the enemy line.
My viewing of the ‘collateral murder’ video is that it’s a tragic accident as far as the journos are concerned, but no-one should question their right to be there, which is what Bolt has done.
I find it absolutely extraordinary that a journalist – and a former foreign correspondent no less – is prepared to blame this on the Reuters journalists themselves, who were trying to do their jobs in the teeth of considerable danger.