I was reading the homework and the article, "Dangerous Assignment" really got me thinking.
This particular quote: "The trouble is that a lot of the military, particularly the American and the Israeli military, do not want us there. And they make it very uncomfortable for us to work. And I think that this ... is leading to security forces, in some instances, feeling it is legitimate to target us with deadly force and with impunity," from Nik Gowing, makes me so mad.
Does everyone feel the same? I know you'd be putting yourself at risk covering a war story, but shouldn't the military be responsible enough to target the right people?
9 comments:
I agree, but I'll take it a step further. They shouldn't be targeting journalists at all. The United States is one of the most powerful nations in the world and should be setting an example of proper etiquette on the battle field. It is an inappropriate display of force to kill journalists, no matter what side they are covering.
While I do agree that it is wrong to kill journalists, I don't necessarily think the military does it on purpose. It's not like "Oh, look there's a journalist. Let's kill them." Sometimes I think it is by accident. A war zone is a very tense environment and sometimes a journalist could be mistaken for the enemy.
Like Gabby said, it may be complete accidents rather than targeting. Like in one of the articles where the journalist's camera looked like a weapon, the soldier took defensive measures. Yes, it's a terrible tragedy but journalists who venture into warzones know the risks and are basically accepting the possibility of death to cover the stories.
I agree with you, it's the job description to go in there and be in the midst of it all, dangerous or otherwise.
I'll bring it a step further and ask how you feel about journalists that are in the field, taking pictures, reporting and come across really heavy and sometimes hard stories and situations. In the reading last night there was a piece on journalists attending therapy because of what they witnessed. Is it unethical to help people in need when you are on the job? What if someone is dying in front of you, starving or shot, could you just take the picture, or report about it? What would you do?
Technically, as a journalist, this is unethical. It questions the objectiveness of your work. But as a human, it's completely different.
At the Newseum downtown, there is a gallery of all the Pulitzer Prize-winning photographs, with background stories. One of the photos was of a small African child dying of starvation. (I unfortunately cannot remember the name of it, or else I'd provide a link.) The photographer said his greatest regret was not helping the child. The guilt multiplied when he got thousands of angry letters berating him for leaving the child, and it eventually got to him--he killed himself.
Sorry for such a downer, but I felt it was necessary to my point. If I was in that situation, I would help, even if it is considered unethical by others.
Here is the photo, by Kevin Carter:
word
I think that a journalist helping the subject being filmed or photographed does affect the subsequent report, thus making it subjective. If speaking in mere journalistic terms, I think the journalist should not directly involve him or herself in the situation. However, we are humans, and if the reporter feels that he is able to keep his report and his personal connection to it separate from each other, it is fair to act. I also think that the type of reporting would also affect the journalist's actions. If he is strictly writing a news report, then helping the subject he is interviewing is unethical. However, if he is writing a story in which his personal feelings and ideas are accepted, then it is OK for him to help the subject.
Post a Comment