Amity university lucknow

Project of media analysis challenges of reporters in the war zones

Submitted to: Mr. santosh kumar

Submitted by: Akbar bakht Bjmc-vith semester Enrolment no. a7528710090

Reporter's role in the war zone

Nowadays, thanks to developing technology like satellite and telecommunication system, the world is becoming smaller and smaller. It is possible for us to get international news from everywhere in the world. Also, we can receive these news much faster than before. CNN news is a good example of using the technology successfully to report news about the Gulf War because CNN had the ability to present, transmit, and distribute news 24 hours a day at that time. In war zones in the world, there are some foreign correspondences from US TV networks to report fresh news to audience from the front lines. Christiane Amanpour is one of such international correspondents for the Cable News Network and a part time reporter for CBS's 60 minutes. She was hired by CNN as a news assistant in 1983 and she was promoted to reporter-producer three years later. In 1990, she captured her first overseas posts in Germany and then got her first battle covering the Persian Gulf war In 1991, she delivered live reports from Saudi Arabia following Iraqi Scud missile attacks. Since then, she has covered events in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda and the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Amanpour has worked to report from the world's trouble spots for five years and fellow journalists have made up a rhyme about her. "Where there's war, there's Amanpour'~ Her strong and brilliant reports have been widely praised by some of the top people in her field and the CBS News correspondent Mike Wallace commented about her: "She is an excellent reporter, but more important, there seems to be something real about her. She seems personally involved, an~ in TV that is very important because it drags the viewer along with her` (Current Biography 1996, pg. 11) What Wallace called her "personally involved" of the war as one reporter made a controversy when she accused President Bill Clinton of American foreign policy on Bosnia during a CNN "global forum," an interactive public meeting with journalists around the world in May 1994. Amanpour locked glances with President Clinton and said, "Mr. President,... my question is, as leader of the free world, as leader of the only superpower, why has it taken you, the United States, so long to articulate a policy on Bosnia? Why, in the absence of a policy have you allowed the US and the West to be held hostage to those who do have a policy - the Bosnian Serbs - and do you not think that the constant flip-flops of your administration on the issue of Bosnia set a very dangerous precedent and would lead people such as [North Korean president] Kim II Sung or other strong people to take you less seriously than you would like to be taken?" An angered Clinton responded coldly, " No, but speeches like that may make them take me less seriously than I'd like to be taken. There have been no

constant flip-flops, madam." Also, near the end of the program Clinton returned to what she had said. "That poor woman has seen the horrors of this war, and she has had to report on them... She's been fabulous. She's done a great service to the whole world on that. I do not blame her for being mad at me. But I'm doing the best I can on t,his problem from my perspective" (Picchiard, p25-26). Here, there are some questions whether journalists like Amanpour are crossing a fine line between reporting and crusading, and are trying to influence foreign policy rather than simply report facts. After that day, political people and news analysts argued not only about her admonition to Clinton but also about her reporting from the war zone by using the words, "advocacy journalism," What kinds of problems does advocacy journalism have? Even though Amanpour has seen the horrors of the war as Clinton mentioned, is it :correct what she reported during the war and said to the President as a reporter? We can 'link about the points that people criticized and argued about Amanpour to answer these questions her way of reporting and her ideal to influence foreign policy from the point of view of a reporter. First, we can examine her reporting style from the war zone that people criticized later. There are two basic journalistic instincts according to media scholars in "Existential Journalism": the first is more "sense oriented" or subjective and the second is more "fact oriented" or objective (Picchiard, p27). According to the media scholar John C. Merril "subjective journalists want to bring themselves, their judgments to bear on the news of day. They are not satisfied to be mere bystanders. The aloof journalist, on the other hand maintains that journalism is primarily a disinterested activity in which the audience should not be encumbered by journalists' biases, prejudices, judgments, feelings or opinions." He also says that most, journalists tend to be objectivists who give short shrift to personal judgments and advocacy journalism. Amanpour's approach of reporting is subjective because she had a strong purpose when she reported. However, why is subjective reporting criticized by people? A veteran foreign correspondent David Binder of the New York Times mentions: "...Our job is to report from all sides, not to play favorites" (Picchiard,p27). Also Jackson Diehl, the Washington Post's assistant managing editor for foreign news, says that getting too close to a story is always a danger. Diehl says that particularly for journalists who witness horrific events, "being as objective as possible, being an observer and not taking ides is something they all struggle with" (Picchiard, p26). Such people say subjective :reporting is not appropriate for reporters because

their selective news have bias or stereotype from them and it's not good for audience to receive such news. About bias, UN officials discontented with the quality and fairness of media ,coverage of events in Bosnia criticized the media for having a "blood lust" and an anti-Serb bias. Also Balkan analyst Obrad Kesic wonders why more reporters didn't write about Serbian children who were targeted by snipers or about Serbian refugees forced into exile. (Picchiard, p29). On the other side, Amanpour explains the Serbs denied CNN and other Western media better access to the territory they controlled and believed the Serbs did themselves an incredible disservice. Also Amanpour asserts about objectivity: "The very notion of objectivity in war becomes immensely important... I have come to believe that objectivity means giving all sides a fair hearing, but not treating all sides equally Once you treat all sides the same in a case such as Bosnia, you are drawing a moral equivalence between victim and aggressor. And from there it is a short step toward being neutral...So objectivity must go hand in hand with morality" (Amanpour,p 17) As we know, Amanpour understands the importance of objectivity for reporting from her point of view. We can tell that reporting from war zones is something different from the usual reporting in which neutral journalistic approach is required. Throughout the history of the United States, the media have played a central role in wartime. Obviously, the media have provide the major source kept informing about military events and the overall direction of the war to the people. However, the role of the reporters in war time has gone much beyond the basic questions of who, what, where, and when. As the primary source of information during wartime, the media have helped to rivet American attention on the various military struggles in which the United States has taken pan. By and large, the American media as an institution have generally been in favor of American military actions and have sought to encourage public support and to bolster morale through their coverage of events However, such traditional reporters' role had changed after the Vietnam War. During the war, the advent of television had some impact, for it brought the war into everyone~s living room on a daily basis (Startt and Sloan, p66) In 1967, seventeen million Americans watched NBC news nightly, fourteen million watched CBS, and six million watched ABC The figures for 1970 were about nineteen million for CBS, eighteen million for NBC, and eight million for ABC During the years from 1968 through 1973, television devoted 25 percent of its air time to Vietnam-related stories. Scholars agree that television newscasts do

shape the public's opinions (Small, p17). CBS correspondent Morley Safer in Dateline 1966, published by the Overseas Press Club mentioned about the functions of TV news during the Vietnam War:

This is television's first war. It is only in the past few years that the medium has become portable enough to go out on military operations. And this has raised some serious problems - problems, incidentally, which every network correspondent and cameraman in Vietnam is acutely aware of The camera can describe in excruciating, harrowing detail what war is all about [emphasis added]. The cry of pain, the shattered face - it's all there on film, and out it goes into millions of American homes during the dinner hour. It is true that on Its own every piece of war film takes an a certain battle men do not die with a clean shot through the heart; they are blown to pieces Television tells it that way. It also tells what happens to civilians who are caught in the middle of battle. It tells what happens to soldiers under the stress of the unreal conditions in which they live... The unfavorable has always been reported along with the favorable but television tells it with greater impact (Braestrup, p67). Thus, in the case of the Vietnam War, the media had a somewhat reverse impact by depressing moral rather than boosting it, as had been true in the past. We can say it was the reporters who select these scenes that gave strong impressions to US audience from the war zone. According to Frank McCulloch, who covered the Vietnam War for Time magazine, "In World War II there was no doubt what the reporters' role was, especially from the US point of view. They had full censorship, accepted it and saw the need for it..But in Vietnam we shifted, not toward a Communist point of view. but in doubting and challenging the US mission, both in terms of how adequately it was fulfilled and whether it was a worthy mission to begin with. That's the first time we questioned what the US was doing and if they were doing it well (Ricchiardi,p2B). As we know from the example of the Vietnam

War reporting, reporters had their own points of view and made judgment what news they should distribute to the audience from the war zone. Here, we should understand that the role of reporters during the Vietnam War was different from those during the Bosnian war because American reporters were covering a third party war in which the US had been a bystander for the most part. It is very difficult for reporters to determine how they should report the news from such war zone and the reporters` professional judgment are required. Marvin Stone, a former editor of US News & World Report who covered the Korean and Vietnam wars stresses: "lust the pure act of reporting the immorality you witness on the ground in Bosnia makes you an advocate You don't always get two sides to the story, particularly in wartime" (Picchiard, p28). Amanpour's way of reporting was to put a human face on the conflict, rather than simply focus an battles and firefights. Amanpour expresses the point: "What I admire most, and what kept me going during the war, was the incredible resistance among ordinary people to the indignities they were undergoing Bosnia really was a war against civilians and against their dignity" (Picchiard, p26). As we know, Amanpour's way of reporting was selective in the war zone. However, as we know, reporting from a war zone is not the same as usual reporting. Reporters in the war zones an required to have judgment of what is news in the war there and what they want to distribute to audiences as journalists. We cannot say advocacy journalism is not appropriate for reporters from the war zone simply if they make judgment with a responsibility to select and report news to audience from a point of view of journalists. Next, we can consider another controversy about Amanpour as a reporter: her ideal of reporting is to influence foreign policy and she accused the President of US foreign policy on Bosnia. Is it possible for reporters to influence government policies or spur the international community into action? The foreign editor for USA Today Johanna Neuman doesn't believe impassioned newspaper reports and graphic TV images sway policy. Neuman mentions Bosnia as proof that the media often have little influence on diplomacy, despite four years of reporting from Bosnia Neuman stresses "If images were driving policy, the US Marines would have marched into Bosnia a long time ago" (Ricchiardi, p29). On the other hand, Amanpour believes that TV reporting from the war zone is the most powerful approach to influence foreign policy. When we consider the example that the media influence to government policy during the Vietnam War, we can recognize her idea is right in some ways. According to Mclvin Small in "Covering Dissent, during the Vietnam War, opinion in America was affected most

by the influential media, which either affected the perceptions of opinion leaders directly or affected other media, which in turn affected their readers, some of whom were local opinion leaders(Small, p4). Also, Small stresses: "The media also create opinion by reporting opinion. When television anchors stare that the country is in a conservative mood, they cause some members of their audience, who do not know what mood they are in, to think that they are in a conservative mood. More specifically, when a CBS New York Times poll suggested that antiwar sentiment was growing, some who were nervous about holding an allegedly unpatriotic or unpopular view decided to come out of the closest with their opposition to the war (Small, pg. 11). As we know, it is possible for reporters to set agenda to the public by doing these ways of reporting. About agenda setting during the Vietnam War, Small also mentions: "Most observers agree that although the media are not generally successful in telling their audiences what to think, they are undoubtedly successful in telling them what to think about. Few doubt the importance of the agenda setting role of newspapers, magazines, and the electronic media. Although that role is affected by what readers and viewers bring with them to a news story, in general: when it appears in several media in a prominent location, people will begin thinking about that story. Since most media tend to agree about the relative importance of news, readers and viewers are exposed to a national agenda that is reinforced, wherever they look, day after day (Small, pg.11) There was no doubt that the media had powerful influence to the government policy during the Vietnam War. However, it was not reporters but the public who influenced government policy after they saw news report from the war zone and the role of reporters became support for the public's antiwar activities. Here, we can consider Amanpour's question to Clinton in the global forum. Amanpour told in American journalism Review: "The question wasn't designed to be rude to the president. Clearly, it was motivated by my gut and from my experience here. And I think I was right" (Ricchiardi, p 26). In my opinion, this her behavior exceed far over the line as a reporter because the role of reporter is only to report the fact to audience. If the news is the fact, even though it is selective news that reporters choose from their points of view, it is acceptable for us. We can tell that it is possible for her to expect people arouse public opinion about Serb as aggressor after her reporting from the war zone and the public opinion can change US foreign policy, but she should not have criticized Clinton directly from the standpoint of a reporter's job

In conclusion, we cannot deny Amanpour's ways of reporting as the advocacy journalism even though her reporting tend to be selective in a war zone if a reporter has appropriate judgment with the responsibility to the audience. Amanpour judges in her way: "With this war, it was not possible for a human being to be neutral... Life obviously is full of gray areas most of the time. But sometimes in life, there are clear examples of black and white... I think during the three-and-a-half-year war in Bosnia, there was a clear aggressor and clear victim'~ (Picchiard, p27). Also she defends her reporting "I only report what I see. [But] what does it mean to be completely unbiased? If I were covering the Holocaust, would I have to say,Oh, the poor Nazis, maybe they have a point?" (Current Biography 1996, p10). On the other hand, we should not accept her behavior against President Clinton at the global forum because her behavior of trying to influence foreign policy directly was over the line as a reporter even though she had enough reasons from her experiences in the war zone. However, at least, her judgment of news in war zone became popular and helped establish the cable network as must-see TV for world leaders. (Reibstein, p64). As Mike Wallace praised Amanpour on 60 minutes , she is "the best-known foreign correspondent in the world" and the one who has "covered more death and misery than just about any other US reporter in the past four years" (Picchiard, p31). In fact, Amanpour has won more than 13 journalism awards for her reporting from Bosnia. Also, CNN gets to keep Amanpour and gets promotional mileage from an agreement that she will be identified on 60 Minutes as a CNN correspondent. She gets to stay at CNN, which runs more foreign news than the networks do, while finding a wider US audience on CBS. A CNN foreign correspondent Waiter Rodgers told Stephen Kinzer, who profiled Amanpour for the New York Times Magazine: "She gives the best war in the business. That is why right now, she's the hottest property in American television" (Current Biography 1996, p9). Amanpour "gives great war" not only in business but also in journalistic controversy about reporters' roles. People need Amanpour for foreign news reporting and she is the one who shows the important role of a reporter in a war zone and the role there is different from the usual role.

Should the media pull women journalists out of war zones?

After Lara Logan, a seasoned reporter and chief foreign correspondent for CBS news, wasattacked and sexually assaulted in Cairo on Friday, news networks reportedly met to discuss pulling their female journalists out of Egypt, a move that some journalists say is understandable and expected but potentially insulting and dangerous. "It is an expected networks response. In 2001, when a (male) Swedish journalist was killed in northern Afghanistan, several networks pulled out their reporters from the region." says longtime war correspondent Anna Badkhen, the author of Peace Meals and Waiting for the Taliban. "I understand why executives at a network, or a newspaper, or a magazine, may feel uncomfortable with subjecting their reporters to potential danger." Susan Milligan, a political reporter who has covered war in Iraq and the Balkans and is now a contributing editor at US News & World Report, says she thinks it is "insulting specifically to Lara Logan, who is a terrific reporter. If you're pulling all of the women out, you're essentially saying that what happened to her is her fault."

"For women, there is always a danger of rape or sexual assault when covering unpredictable and dangerous stories," says Leila Fadel, the Cairo bureau chief for The Washington Post. "I think this applies when covering violent crime in D.C., in the midst of an unpredictable revolution, or in a war zone." Fadel, who has reported from Baghdad and who won the George R. Polk Award for outstanding foreign reporting in 2007, was detained briefly by military police in Egypt earlier this month ("I suddenly found myself blindfolded and handcuffed and in jail," she said in an audio post soon after the incident). Still, she says now, preventing women from reporting on dangerous situations is not the answer. "What happened to Lara Logan was horrendous, frightening and an absolutely unforgivable crime," Fadel says. "It was shocking to me because the entire time I worked in Tahrir Square I found little to no sexual harassment in a nation where groping and forms of sexual harassment have long been highlighted by female activists but received little attention until this incident." "I'm saddened about what Ms. Logan must be going through at this moment and my heart goes out to her," Fadel added. "But I don't think that what appears to be an isolated incident should be a reason to pull seasoned female correspondents away from a very important story." To do so would undermine the diversity of the coverage and "minimize coverage of the future of a nation that overthrew a dictator in a largely peaceful manner and inspired a region to demand change," she says. The risk associated with being a war correspondent isn't limited to women, says Badkhen, who has covered wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Israel, the Palestinian territories, Chechnya and Kashmir for a number of media outlets including The Boston Globe, The Christian Science Monitor,FRONTLINE, and Salon. "I categorically do not believe that women war correspondents are more vulnerable than war correspondents who are men," Badkhen says.

"Female and male correspondents have been killed, maimed, wounded in conflict zones," she continues. "Female and male correspondents have been raped. I have been sexually assaulted (not raped) in war zones. Male colleagues I know have been subjected to torture that involved their sexual organs. The nature of torture, the origin of torture, is to degrade, to render the tortured helpless. The torturer typically goes for methods both the torturer and the tortured consider the most humiliating." "Both Western journalists who lost their limbs on land mines in Afghanistan since last fall are men," Badkhen points out. "They could have been women. As a rule, war does not discriminate." Milligan, who was based in Budapest for years, agrees. "I was in the Balkans and in Iraq and in Haiti and other places. It's a risk for everyone. I was at greater risk for being raped, probably. But [compared to her male colleagues] I was at lower risk of being killed."

She recalls an incident in Kosovo in 1999. "I was with two male reporters and a female translator. We saw a village being burned down, and stupidly drove to it. Then we were surrounded by super paramilitary with guns, who dragged us out and held guns to our skulls and threatened to kill us." Having both men and women in the group changed the dynamic, she says. "They were more willing to believe that we weren't soldiers or part of a movement. It was good to have a mixed group. I think that's why we got out of there alive." Edited to add: Anne Barnard, a New York Times reporter who, with her husband, Thanassis Cambanis, was co-chief of The Boston Globe's Baghdad bureau for years, says that in some cases it was easier for her to stay safe than it was for her husband. "In war zones like Iraq, I often felt women were safer than men-it was easier for us to blend in by wearing hijab, and in some situations it felt that we

were less likely to be targeted by people seeking to take out anger on a symbol of the occupying military," she explains. But in spite of the risks, journalists shouldn't be forbidden from covering dangerous situations because of their gender, Milligan says. "Nobody made me go to the Balkans. Nobody made Lara Logan go to Egypt. Nobody madeAnderson Cooper go," Milligan points out. "Yeah, reporting in a war zone is risky. Being a member of U.S. military is risky. Being a police officer is risky. But it's a risk that we choose to take because it's an important part of democracy, telling people what's going on."

Why do journalists risk their lives in war zones?

In a devastating blow to journalism, award-winning photojournalists Tim Hetherington and Chris Hondros were killed while covering a battle between rebels and Libyan government forces in the city of Misrata on Wednesday. Richard Engel, NBC News chief foreign correspondent, has spent over a decade reporting from war zones across the Middle East, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, and most recently on the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. In a phone interview while driving back into Libya from Egypt after a brief break, he discussed the tragic deaths of Hetherington and Hondros and why war reporters do what they do. When something like the deaths of these two photojournalists happen, people always ask why do war reporters do it? What motivates them to risk their lives to tell the story? Engel: I think Tim and Chris were doing this because they clearly loved it. They were in a position to experience world events first-hand and to make a difference. Their work portrayed war in a close-up fashion that showed the world what conflict is really like, what its like for the victims and what its like for the soldiers.

I think that unique experience and perspective compelled them to do what they did. And it inspires all of us to do it. And in this community of reporters, their loss is very deeply felt. There is a palpable feeling of loss among their colleagues today. Did you ever work with either of them? Engel: Tim was one of the co-directors of the documentary Restrepo. He and Sebastian Junger spent a lot of time in the Korengal Valley in Afghanistan. Coincidentally it was the same outpost that we made a documentary about it called Tip of the Spear. So I know what they went through because we also spent a great deal of time at the same outpost called Restrepo. It was an incredibly dangerous place with very poor conditions hiking for hours a day up and down mountain sides. To do this kind of work it takes tremendous dedication, tremendous willingness to put yourself at risk and tremendous physical stamina. Tim was 41 years old, but he was running up and down mountains alongside U.S. troops who are on average 22, 23, 24 years old. I unfortunately never had the pleasure of knowing Tim, but I know his work and was envious of the incredible material he got. We were at the same place, but he got so many pictures that I wish I had gotten myself. Chris was definitely a part of the community of reporters; everybody knew him. There is a very small group of war correspondents people who you consistently see. In Baghdad, in South Lebanon, in Afghanistan, in Libya now there are maybe a couple of hundred people and that includes Europeans, Americans thats it. THE SETTING AT THE Waldorf-Astoria hotel on Tuesday represented the height of refinement, but Alan Rusbridger, editor in chief of The Guardian, reminded the black-tie crowd at the annual dinner for the Committee to Protect Journalists of something it knew all too well: in many parts of the globe, its profession is under murderous assault. Targeting journalism has become a trend, and now the people who are harassing and killing journalists include governments as well as the people you would expect, said Mr. Rusbridger, who, along with others, was honored at the gathering in New York. Journalists who dig into murky and dangerous corners of the world have become accustomed to being threatened and sometimes hunted by drug lords and gangsters,

but now some governments have decided shooting the messenger is a viable option. The C.P.J. reports that government officials and their allies are now suspected of being responsible for more than a third of the murders of journalists, a higher proportion than killings attributed to terrorist groups or criminal enterprises. On the same day as the Waldorf event, three employees of news organizations were killed in Gazaby Israeli missiles. Rather than suggesting it was a mistake, or denying responsibility, an Israeli Defense Forces spokeswoman, Lt. Col. Avital Leibovich, told The Associated Press, The targets are people who have relevance to terror activity. So it has come to this: killing members of the news media can be justified by a phrase as amorphous as relevance to terror activity. We have entered a very different era of information management in contemporary conflicts. As my colleague Noam Cohen reported last week, both sides in the Gaza conflict used Twitter accounts to fire verbal shots back and forth in an effort to shape perception in the outside world. The good news is that, unlike in 2008, foreign correspondents were allowed to enter Gaza and see for themselves. The bad news is that they were entering a place where some journalists already there were considered targets, making a dangerous situation all the more so. Mahmoud al-Kumi and Hussam Salama worked as cameramen for Al-Aqsa TV, which is run by Hamas and whose reporting frequently reflects that affiliation. They were covering events in central Gaza when a missile struck their car, which, according to Al-Aqsa, was clearly marked with the letters TV. (The car just in front of them was carrying a translator and driver for The New York Times, so the execution hit close to our organization.) And Mohamed Abu Aisha, director of the private Al-Quds Educational Radio, was also in a car when it was hit by a missile. Human Rights Watch spoke up in protest, saying in a statement, Civilian broadcasting facilities are not rendered legitimate military targets simply because they broadcast pro-Hamas or anti-Israel propaganda. Reporters Without Borders, another advocacy group, called the killings a clear violation of international standards. Israeli officials have said Hamas was using journalists and their operations as human shields, and a press officer for the Israeli Defense Force warned in a Twitter post that reporters should be wary of the company they keep: Advice to reporters in #Gaza, just like any person in Gaza: For your own safety, stay away from #Hamas positions and operatives. While it is true that news media operations have become one more arrow in the quiver of modern warfare, a direct attack on information gatherers of any stripe is

deeply troubling. And such attacks are hardly restricted to Israel: recall that in the United States assault on Baghdad, television stations were early targets. A distinction needs to be made. The battle over ideas over who owns the truth in a given conflict should be fought with notebooks and video cameras, not weapons of war. The precision strikes were part of a very dangerous and violent few days for journalists in the region. Last Sunday, three airstrikes by Israel hit two buildings that might have included legitimate targets, but also housed journalists and production personnel from a variety of local and international news media outlets. Television viewers could confirm for themselves that reporting in Gaza can get pretty hairy. During a live shot last Sunday, Anderson Cooper of CNN could be seen ducking after a loud explosion, before popping right back up to continue his report. The violence against journalists in Gaza points to a larger, deadly trend. On Wednesday, the International Press Instituteissued a report saying that 119 journalists had been killed this year, the highest total since it started keeping track in 1997. The total included all journalists who died while doing their jobs, not just journalists who might have been targeted for their affiliation or reporting. Lets acknowledge that many of those who died were so-called conflict journalists reporters, photographers and videographers who understood at least some of the associated risks. But other factors are worth considering. At a time when news outlets in the United States are cutting foreign operations for monetary reasons, cheap and ubiquitous technology has lowered the entry barrier for others who want to engage in journalism, some of whom are already in the theater of conflict and may have partisan motives. Many of those newer players are young and inexperienced in ways that make them particularly vulnerable in the middle of dangerous conflicts. Other journalists have close affiliations with partisan forces in these conflicts. As news media organizations become increasingly politicized, all journalists risk ending up as collateral casualties because they are working adjacent to outlets viewed as purveyors of propaganda. In Syria at the beginning of the year, Marie Colvin, who had been reporting for The Sunday Times of London, and Rmi Ochlik, a French photographer, died when the makeshift media center where they were working alongside opposition journalists was destroyed. The nature of war has changed in a way that makes covering it more dangerous. Improvised explosive devices, or I.E.D.s, and suicide bombers make no distinction in whom they kill and maim, and the street protests that were the flash point for the Arab Spring were a difficult and dangerous reporting challenge

because the protesters and state forces trying to contain them could both be a threat. The deadliest country for journalists this year, in terms of the number who died, was Syria, according to the International Press Institute. Journalists stay safe, in part, by knowing where to position themselves, but that conflict was full of asymmetries. In a place where the front lines are constantly shifting, the margin is razor thin between reporting on the death toll and becoming part of it. Unesco has recognized that more is at stake than dangerous working conditions. It has convened a series of meetings,one of which took place in Vienna last week, investigating ways to increase journalists safety and maintain the free flow of information out of combat zones. The more important principle at work is whether governments in the Middle East and elsewhere will succeed in shaping or silencing different points of view by training missiles and bullets on journalists. If they do, the battle for the truth will disappear into the fog of war.

In today's world, journalists face greater dangers.

GAs the old adage goes, the first casualty of war is truth. Is the second casualty the truth-teller? In the battle to win the hearts and minds of the public, the media - and its ground troops, the reporters who cover the news - are taking greater risks than ever before to bring the news home, live and in real time. But at what cost? Many are maimed physically or psychologically, or both. Others die. Recent conflicts bear this out. During four weeks of fighting in Iraq, 15 journalists and media workers died and two are still missing. Accidents killed some, but most died in combat. During the 1991 Gulf War, no journalists died in the actual liberation of Kuwait, but in the aftermath, four freelancers were killed. Last year, in Afghanistan, eight journalists died in a two-week time span. At one point in that war, media casualties outnumbered military deaths. Ninety-four media workers and journalists died in the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s. Some 60 journalists died during the Vietnam War and the fighting in Cambodia. Recently, the new system of embedding journalists in military units - in which journalists are attached to a military unit in the field - has given the press more

access to the battlefield, and along with it, more exposure to risk. Some 700 journalists were embedded in coalition units. The embedding system, however, has also been criticized. Just after the war began, the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), among others, protested against the differences between the treatment of journalists who were embedded and other reporters seeking the war on their own.

New systems, new risks

Journalists have some international protection. Under the Geneva Convention, journalists are to be treated as civilians in times of conflict; harming or killing them is a war crime. Yet some journalists believe the new types of war - and war coverage - may blur the line between civilians and combatants, unless opposing forces are close enough to tell who is shooting pictures rather than bullets. Economics are also taking a toll. Some media organizations, in a bid to save money, use freelancers or stringers, as opposed to full-time staff. While employers definitions and treatment of freelancers vary considerably, some freelancers may not have insurance as part of their fees, or a supply of ready cash to buy their way out of trouble. Commonly, but not exclusively, stringers and freelancers are also often younger, less experienced journalists. Many are keen to get scoops which can make their names but sometimes this can come at great cost. Data and anecdotal evidence from various conflicts seem to indicate that a considerable number of injuries and deaths occur among journalists working on temporary contracts.

Fighting for survival

In the late 1980s, the question of journalists safety came to the forefront in the trade union movement. Spearheaded by the Dutch Union of Journalists (NVJ), a worldwide action programme was launched by the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) to reduce the risks which journalists face when covering armed conflict. It published a safety guidebook, investigated insurance policies for staff and freelancers, and developed safety courses with employers, including first aid courses and training on the types of weapons encountered on todays battlefields.

The IFJ also insisted that media companies take their share of the responsibility. Against the backdrop of the war in the former Yugoslavia, and with the death toll mounting, the IFJ and its member unions pushed hard to create a tripartite approach to the issue. Today, many IFJ member unions, in cooperation with media companies and military authorities, have created intensive war preparation training programmes for their members. Many media unions include the right to safety training in their collective agreements. The IFJ and its members have also strongly advocated equal benefits for freelancers. In March of this year the IFJ, with support from the European Union, published a comprehensive and in-depth survival guide for correspondents covering conflicts. Live News: A Survival Guide for Journalists can be downloaded from the IFJs. It includes information on equipment, training, precautions, preparations, insurance, first aid, and post-traumatic stress disorders. The IFJ has also championed the establishment of an International News Safety Institute (INSI). In partnership with the International Press Institute (IPI), a publishers press freedom organization based in Austria, and with the support of more than 80 media companies and press freedom groups, the Institute was launched on 3 May of this year. Objectives include developing safety assistance programmes in hot spots, setting standards for safety courses and equipment (body armour, gas masks, chemical suits, etc.), making sure that equipment is available for staff and freelancers, raising awareness about the need for comprehensive training, and supplying safety training materials to concerned companies and unions. The Institute will focus on all aspects of the safety and welfare of journalists and media staff, including promotion of cut-price insurance schemes for freelance and media staff, and promoting trauma and stress counseling initiatives to help media staff cope with the pressures of reporting in difficult conditions, explained IFJ Secretary General Aidan White. But how much will this really help? In the end, covering armed conflicts is always going to be dangerous. It seems from the statistics that the greater the access journalists have to a war zone, the greater the number who die, but the better the general public is informed. TMedia companies and trade unions can chip away at the dangers through training and preparation. But in the end, journalists, like truth, will continue to be casualties of war.

Intense Training Prepares Journalists for War.

When journalists from major media organizations head into a war zone, they typically go armed with specialized training that could save their lives if something goes wrong. Many media companies now send their staffs to specialized war training classes to learn basic survival skills and to raise their awareness of the different dangers they might face. During one "very intense" war zone training program designed for reporters, the instructors emphasized such key points as staying calm during a crisis and assessing the situation carefully, said Jean Fievet, 31, an ABC News assignment editor. "It certainly brought home the risks involved with reporting in hostile environments," said Fievet, who recently completed a weeklong course near London. Training for War Two of the best-known private firms that specialize in war training are Centurion Risk Assessment Services and AKE Integrated Risk Solutions. Former members of the British military run both companies. The Pentagon also offers a weeklong class for journalists likely to be embedded with a military unit in Iraq or Afghanistan. Some nonprofit organizations have also stepped in to offer low-cost or free training in countries where there is conflict or violence against journalists. ABC News sends its staff to Centurion Risk Assessment for a five-day course called Hostile Environments and First Aid Training, which is held either in the United States or England. Centurion prides itself on helping people save lives. Its mission statement reads, "Danger knows no frontier, and press cards do not stop bullets. Even with the best of training, journalists can become casualties." The course teaches people to identify and evaluate risks to their safety and security, whether the danger stems from disease and faulty hygiene, or land mines.

Students simulate a number of life-threatening scenarios, such as being taken hostage, enduring captivity and crossing border checkpoints; the course also trains students in how to use weapons. To make the training as relevant as possible, many of the situations re-create actual incidents encountered by media and aid workers. Centurion also uses theatrical pyrotechnics to re-create the nerve-racking roar of machine-gun crossfire or mine explosions. "The many scenarios, mostly held outdoors, were as realistic as possible," said Fievet, adding that the instructors' specialized military training and their countless hours in war zones with journalists added another dimenson. ABC News correspondent Miguel Marquez, who spent a month in Iraq, agrees. "Those scenarios are helpful, because they demonstrate how chaotic situations can become," he said. "While there, one is always aware of the danger, and it's very easy to get on edge about whether you're going to get caught up in something that you can't control." Rushing to the Scene The staff understands a journalist's dilemma, Fievet said. Reporters have to cover stories while also taking into account the risks to their personal safety. "Be careful not to make a situation worse," Fievet said. One of the first scenarios he participated in involved a man being shot by a sniper. "I charged out there and the instructor informed me that I was putting myself in harm's way by doing that, considering someone had a gun," he explained. Like Centurion, AKE blends lectures and practical scenarios supported by video footage and demonstrations. The interactive exercises test each student's retention of the classroom information. AKE's intended its five-day course, called Surviving Hostile Regions, for news teams and individuals working in challenging or hostile areas. "We aim to teach as much as possible about hostile environments," said Iain Donald, head of risk consultancy and intelligence at AKE. The more context

individuals have, the more prepared they will be, since no two situations are ever alike, he said. He described the full-weapons lecture, which focuses on the strengths and weaknesses of weapons so that if reporters in Africa see militia men with AK-47s, they will know the range and the risks involved. Donald believes firmly in his company's training classes, adding that there is no point going out in the field without being informed. "Our approach is that everything has to be led by intelligence with specific training and with a full array of the risks, he said. In business since 1993, AKE has expanded its courses and designed area-specific training, with a new focus on Iraq. Fievet believes his training was invaluable, adding that he learned the importance of taking precautions at all times. Marquez also points out that taking such precautions is a matter of course for the military and people living there. "What is amazing to realize," said Marquez, "is the fear of uncertainty that we feel is what Iraqis and U.S. soliders deal with every day."

Why War Reporters Go Solo, Despite The Risks

War correspondents have always been at the short end of the actuarial tables. Life insurance salesmen do not pester them. No war is safe, and no correspondent is bulletproof. But the rules of the game have been changing, and the recent deaths in Syria of two prominent correspondents, Anthony Shadid of The New York Times and Marie Colvin, an American working for Britain's Sunday Times, show how this line of work has grown even riskier. One of the unfortunate truths of modern war reporting is that many conflicts can only be covered by going solo on the rebel side, which leaves a reporter even more exposed and vulnerable. Historically, most wars were fought between national armies with welldefined battle zones. War correspondents often worked closely with one army. In World War II and Vietnam, American reporters often wore American military uniforms and traveled to and from the front lines with U.S. troops.

Enlarge image War correspondents traditionally covered conflicts by traveling with armies. Here, Associated Press reporter Chris Tomlinson, (right) is shown with U.S. forces in

Iraq in 2003. But in many modern wars, reporters operate independently on the rebel side of the fighting, which raises the risks. John Moore/AP This even carried over to America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where correspondents embedded with U.S. forces. For the reporter, this meant access to the troops, the protection of their superior firepower, relatively safe travel, and the promise of instant medical care if required. Different Kinds Of Conflicts But most conflicts aren't like that anymore. In Syria, as with the other Arab uprisings, government forces have been battling ragtag groups of rebel fighters. And for a correspondent trying to cover this battle, there's only one real option go with the rebels. That's where the story is, even if the risks are greater. The Syrian government has generally tried to keep foreign correspondents out of the country, granting only occasional visas to journalists and providing brief, highly orchestrated tours that offered no real insight into the state of the fighting or the mood of the Syrian people. In Syria, as with the other Arab uprisings, government forces have been battling ragtag groups of rebel fighters. And for a correspondent trying to cover this battle, there's only one real option go with the rebels. In contrast, a reporter who links up with the rebels is a free agent, able to go wherever his or her instincts lead. But they have to do so without a safety net. Shadid and Colvin both entered Syria like smugglers, slipping across the border with help of the Syrian opposition. Colvin, 56, a war reporter for more than two decades, wore a black eye patch, a constant reminder of a shrapnel wound in 2001 from Sri Lanka's civil war. She was well aware of growing risks. In a speech last year, she said, "It has never been more dangerous to be a war correspondent, because the journalist in the combat zone has become a prime target."

Shadid, 43 and a fluent Arab speaker, also understood the dangers. He was shot in the shoulder in the West Bank in 2002 and was seized by the Libyan army just last year. Changing Rules The Geneva Conventions of 1949 stated that journalists captured while accompanying an army were entitled to the same protections as soldiers and were effectively prisoners of war, noted Joel Simon, the executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists. After the Vietnam War, the Geneva Conventions were updated and modified to say that journalists working independently were entitled to the same status as civilians. "International humanitarian law has acknowledged that journalists operate in both capacities," said Simon. "But today, the predominant way journalists cover wars is to go independently."

Enlarge image New York Times journalist Anthony Shadid often wrote about ordinary citizens caught up in war zones. Shadid (center), who died last week in Syria, is shown here talking to Egyptians in Cairo during the revolution that toppled then-President Hosni Mubarak in February 2011. Ed Ou/Getty Images

Drawn To The Front Lines In Syria, both Shadid and Colvin were drawn to Homs, where the Syrian military has been shelling civilian neighborhoods in hopes of crushing the rebellion. It's an incredibly dangerous place to be, but it is precisely the kind of places that Shadid and Colvin sought out throughout their careers. Both built their reputations telling the deeply personal tales of ordinary people trapped in extraordinary conditions. In Colvin's final story, published Sunday, she described the hellish scene in Homs. "They call it the widows' basement. Crammed amid makeshift beds and scattered belongings are frightened women and children trapped in the horror of Homs," she wrote. "Everyone in the cellar has a similar story of hardship or death." There is no way to get these front-line stories by traveling in a pack. But it also means the reporter is extremely exposed. Colvin and French photographer Remi Ochlik were killed when a shell struck a house in Homs that the opposition was using as a makeshift press center. Because the fighting has been so intense, her body remained in Homs on Thursday amid efforts to find a way to send her remains home. Shadid spent a week in Syria, and was being taken out by Syrian guides on horseback, because traveling the roads by car was considered too dangerous. The horses apparently touched off a fatal asthma attack. There were no medics to help, no helicopter to whisk him away. A photographer working with him carried Shadid's body across the border into Turkey. Both Shadid and Colvin built their reputations telling the deeply personal tales of ordinary people trapped in extraordinary conditions. A More Dangerous World The deaths only reconfirmed the fact that the Syrian fighting has been particularly dangerous and difficult to cover. Western journalists have

been able to catch only occasional glimpses. Those who have ventured in have stayed for only a few days. As Western reporters struggle to reach Syria and other war zones, coverage is increasingly supplied by local residents using social media. In Libya, endless streams of tweets provided tidbits on the fighting last year. In Syria, many have put their lives on the line to take video footage and post it anonymously on YouTube. Seven journalists have been killed in Syria since the uprising began nearly a year ago, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. And last year, 29 of the 46 journalists killed were in Muslim countries where wars or unrest were taking place. A quick scan of war zones, from Syria to Somalia to Afghanistan, shows the world is not getting safer for journalists trying to report on these conflicts. But it's a reminder of the risks Anthony Shadid and Marie Colvin were never afraid to take.

Charter for the Safety of Journalists Working in War Zones or Dangerous Areas
The safety of journalists working on dangerous assignments is not always guaranteed, even if international law provides adequate protection on paper, because warring parties these days are showing less and less respect for that law. News-gatherers cannot get assurances from belligerents that they will be fully protected. Because of the risks they run to keep the public informed, media workers, journalists and their assistants (whether permanent staff or freelance) working in war zones or dangerous areas are entitled to basic protection, compensation and guarantees from their employers, though protection must never be taken to mean supervision by local military and governmental authorities. Media management also have their own responsibility to make every effort to prevent and reduce the risks involved. The following eight principles shall apply: Principle 1 - Commitment The media, public authorities and journalists themselves shall systematically seek ways to assess and reduce the risks in war zones or dangerous areas by consulting each other and exchanging all useful information. Risks to be taken by staff or freelance

journalists, their assistants, local employees and support personnel require adequate preparation, information, insurance and equipment. Principle 2 - Free will Covering wars involves an acceptance by media workers of the risks attached and also a personal commitment which means they go on a strictly voluntary basis. Because of the risks, they should have the right to refuse such assignments without explanation and without there being any finding of unprofessionnal conduct. In the field, the assignment can be terminated at the request of the reporter or the editors after each side has consulted the other and taken into account their mutual responsibilities. Editors should beware of exerting any kind of pressure on special correspondents to take additional risks. Principle 3 - Experience War reporting requires special skills and experience, so editors should choose staff or freelances who are mature and used to crisis situations. Journalists covering a war for the first time should not be sent there alone, but be accompanied by a more experienced reporter. Teamwork in the field should be encouraged. Editors should systematically debrief staff when they return so as to learn from their experiences. Principle 4 - Preparation Regular training in how to cope in war zones or dangerous areas will help reduce the risk to journalists. Editors should inform staff and freelances of any special training offered by nationally or internationally qualified bodies and give them access to it. All journalists called upon to work in a hostile environment should have first-aid training. Every accredited journalism school should familiarise its students with these issues. Principle 5 - Equipment Editors should provide special correspondents working in dangerous areas with reliable safety equipment (bullet-proof jackets, helmets and, if possible, armoured vehicles), communication equipment (locator beacons) and survival and first-aid kits. Principle 6 - Insurance Journalists and their assistants working in war zones or dangerous areas should have insurance to cover illness, repatriation, disability and loss of life. Media management should take all necessary steps to provide this before sending or employing personnal on dangerous assignments. They should strictly comply with all applicable professional conventions and agreements.

Principle 7 - Psychological counselling Media management should ensure that journalists and their assistants who so desire have access to psychological counselling after returning from dangerous areas or reporting on shocking events. Principle 8 - Legal protection Journalists on dangerous assignments are considered civilians under Article 79 of Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, provided they do not do anything or behave in any way that might compromise this status, such as directly helping a war, bearing arms or spying. Any deliberate attack on a journalist that causes death or serious physical injury is a major breach of this Protocol and deemed a war crime.

Rewards versus risks for war zone rookies

an article for the BBC College of Journalism looking at why young journalists, some with little or no reporting experience, are choosing to travel to the most dangerous countries in the world in an effort to advance their career. The title - Unprepared, inexperienced and in a war zone - was deliberately provocative. But it seemed to strike a chord. The article was shared widely online and provoked lively discussion on social networks. Later this month, Ill be chairing a panel at the Frontline Club in London which will examine the issues raised in the article. In many respects, the debate is nothing new. Journalists have long begun their careers in the worlds hot spots. Robert Capa was in his early 20s when he took his iconic Falling Soldier photograph during the Spanish Civil War. Age is no impediment to fine, sometimes even timeless, journalism. What has changed though is the news industry itself. Tighter budgets and a decline in the number of staff jobs have made newsrooms more reliant on freelancers. At the same time the dangers facing journalists are greater than ever. Ahead of the Frontline Club discussion, I canvassed opinions from a wide range of international journalists, from rookies to veterans.

The US writer Charles Glass summed up the current state of foreign news reporting. The days of a specialist like David Hirst covering the Middle East from Beirut for the Guardian for more than 30 years, during which he developed his expertise, his Arabic and his contacts, are over, he told me. There isn't a model to replace it, beyond daily decisions to cover big events as if they came out of nowhere. The void is filled by ambitious freelancers, some of whom are good and honest; others of whom are neither, said Glass. Most of the seasoned hands I spoke to were able to recount examples of ignorant, culturally insensitive or even downright dangerous behaviour by junior colleagues theyd met in the field. Ive bumped into freelancers in Aleppo trying to make it without having done much research or having much regard to safety, said the Daily Telegraphs Middle East correspondent Richard Spencer. To be frank, those very aspects of their professional behaviour made it unlikely they would have much to offer journalistically. If you dont know what you are doing, how likely are you to get a good story or picture? Jan Eikelboom, a reporter for the Dutch current affairs programme Nieuwsuur, agreed: It seems Aleppo has become a magnet for young, inexperienced reporters and I find this a very worrisome development. These kids are not only a danger to themselves, but also to the people whom they work with. Who is going help the wounded driver if nobody in the team even knows what a tourniquet is? One Brazilian freelancer, Marina Darmaros, sent me a candid email just hours after returning from Aleppo (pictured). The Moscow-based reporter described her assignment in Syria as terrible and one which, in retrospect, she was totally unprepared for. In my opinion the Facebook era contributes to the fact that more of us are going to war - we are all connected now, Darmaros told me. Maybe we all imagine its safer than it really is, and thats why we go. But, despite these concerns and criticisms, every fledgling correspondent I spoke to stressed the same fundamental problem. They are in a Catch 22 situation, desperately wanting to build a reputation in a market place where opportunities to make an impression are few and far between.

Experience is the issue, said Daniella Ritzau-Reid, an aid worker who is hoping to make the move into journalism. When faced with options such as returning to university or work experience at a local paper, heading back to the field and having a go is far more appealing. At what point do you simply have to jump in at the deep end? Venetia Rainey, who currently works on the Daily Star newspaper in Lebanon, criticised the double standards of some more established colleagues: I find it unfair, although I understand the concerns, that older journalists who have secure, regularly salaried jobs or else enjoy already established reputations see fit to lay into [young journalists]. It's really, really hard to get into journalism these days. You can't expect people to turn down opportunities that instantly put them on a foreign editor's radar. You're never going to be able to stop young, aspiring journalists from going into dangerous places and its frankly hypocritical for those a generation or more above to frown on us for doing so, Rainey told me. Former Fox News and CNN reporter Chris Kline put his finger on the dilemma: There is no substitute for experience and theres only one way to get it, though there are few apprenticeships quite as risky as front-line journalism.