What would you do?

[Michele 1]

I was wondering, in the recent spate of videos and kidnappings, if you were a reporter, and had "the story," what would you do?

Would you do nothing? Just report on the story, and let the chips fall where they may?

Would you turn in the bad guys? Before or after reporting the story?

Would you help them, concealing where you got the tape, protecting the source, or assist them in camoflauging themselves and/or their surroundings?

And why? (Can you explain why you chose what you did?)

Just wondering...

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[MC208B 0]

it would be nice to whip out a pair of .45's and blow the fuckers away. Just a fasntasy of course

[rickjump1 0]

I don't think anybody can be 100% unbiased. If we are talking about Iraq or some child molester here in the states it doesn't matter. Knowing that I would become a target and possibly loose my life and job, I would turn them in and forget the story. Screw these guys. Why would I do this? I saw a hard core airborne infantry company commander risk his career so he could medevac a little girl and her father when we were in hot pursuit of some bad guys a long time ago. His emotions over took him for a short moment in time and he got away with it.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[quade 4]

You haven't really given enough of a hypothetical here for me to make a real decision.

Reporters can and do sometimes get involved in taking down "bad guys". It's -highly- risky as they have less protection than anyone else involved in the story. Generally speaking and as an almost universally accepted code of ethics they do not carry any sort of weaponry other than pen, paper and camera.

If a reporter becomes a combatant it puts all journos at risk. This was one of a number of the reasons why Geraldo Rivera was so villified by reporters when he went Afghanistan. He was packing heat and even showed it off on network. Stupid jerk made all journos trying to cover the story instant and defenseless targets.

But I digress.

If you want to see an interesting film about journalistic ethics in combat, go rent "Under Fire".

The absolute ideal is for the combat journo to simply report what he sees. If intelligence can be gathered out of that, it will be. To become part of the story is generally considered off limits. Also, don't ever make the assumption that just because a journo goes to see terrorist leaders or recieves terrorist video tapes or messages that the journo himself has any clue as to the whereabouts of the terrorist leaders.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Michele 1]

Quote

You haven't really given enough of a hypothetical here for me to make a real decision.

Sorry. I'll do better next time

Quote

Reporters can and do sometimes get involved in taking down "bad guys". It's -highly- risky as they have less protection than anyone else involved in the story. Generally speaking and as an almost universally accepted code of ethics they do not carry any sort of weaponry other than pen, paper and camera.

Right. But there comes a point where one must have those particular ethics superceded by a moral code which doesn't say "anything for a story" or "it doesn't matter." At times, it does matter. It matters a great deal. Like, life and death matters.

Quote

If a reporter becomes a combatant it puts all journos at risk. This was one of a number of the reasons why Geraldo Rivera was so villified by reporters when he went Afghanistan. He was packing heat and even showed it off on network. Stupid jerk made all journos trying to cover the story instant and defenseless targets.

I don't think I'd be in-country like he was without carrying a weapon...haven't several journos been kidnapped and killed? Would it have been different if they were carrying a weapon?

(And for some reason I thought GR was tossed out because he drew maps in the dirt and endangered the troops he was embedded with, not because he was carrying a weapon...I've been wrong before, though...)

Quote

If you want to see an interesting film about journalistic ethics in combat, go rent "Under Fire".

As soon as I figure out how to hook up my new vcr, I will.

Quote

The absolute ideal is for the combat journo to simply report what he sees. If intelligence can be gathered out of that, it will be. To become part of the story is generally considered off limits.

Sure, if you're covering something like the elections, or a car chase, or the aftermath of a hurricane/flood/earthquake. It seems to me that when someone will die if you don't do something - and then you don't do that something - is not becoming "part of the story," it's being human. And it could be seen that the rest of the story was created by your inaction, too...

And aren't journos with these generally accepted ethics also the ones who say "if it bleeds, it leads"...?

Quote

Also, don't ever make the assumption that just because a journo goes to see terrorist leaders or recieves terrorist video tapes or messages that the journo himself has any clue as to the whereabouts of the terrorist leaders.

And please don't make the assumption that I wasn't aware of that.

I was thinking of the french reporter who went with and then taped the SAM attack on El Al some 2 years ago....iirc. He didn't reveal who the people were that he went with, let alone where he met them (again, iirc.).

I guess I am just wondering where the line is drawn for other folks...I know that I would not be able to live with myself if I interviewed someone about oh, say a hostage, didn't disclose my sources and/or locations...and then the hostage was beheaded. I just couldn't do that...and I'd like to think that most people are of the same mind.

Maybe what I mean is sometimes you have to say "fuck the story, it's someone's life on the line" and do something.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[quade 4]

Quote

(And for some reason I thought GR was tossed out because he drew maps in the dirt and endangered the troops he was embedded with, not because he was carrying a weapon...I've been wrong before, though...)

I didn't say that's why he was tossed out by the military, I said that's one of the reasons he was hated by the other reporters.

That said, it IS against the rules laid down by the military for embeds.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/d20030228pag.pdf

Quote

4.C. MEDIA EMBEDDED WITH U.S. FORCES ARE NOT PERMITTED TO CARRY PERSONAL FIREARMS.

Quote

And aren't journos with these generally accepted ethics also the ones who say "if it bleeds, it leads"...?

That has nothing to do with whether or not they've become involved in the story . . . it's simply a matter of what goes first in the news.

What's the more important story; gang riots in street or Disneyland opens new ride? Gang riots -always- will run before ride openings -- ALWAYS.

Quote

I was thinking of the french reporter who went with and then taped the SAM attack on El Al some 2 years ago....iirc. He didn't reveal who the people were that he went with, let alone where he met them (again, iirc.).

As I recall . . . the story went something to the effect of . . . some shady types invite reporter to see something, reporter knows not what. The reporter suspects something, but has no idea what they're about to actually do. They stop car, get out and open the trunk, pull out a missle and fire it off. They then leave the reporter by the side of the road.

What was the reporter -supposed- to do? There's nothing she (I think it was a she but I might be wrong) could do to stop it and they left.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Generally speaking and as an almost universally accepted code of ethics they do not carry any sort of weaponry other than pen, paper and camera.

When we are dealing with an enemy that doesn't give a shit whether reporters uphold principles of noncombat, it is, in my opinion, STUPID for reporters to not avail themselves of the means of self defense. That doesn't mean carry a gun and fire it as part of a mission; it simply means "have a gun to use in a pinch to possibly defend your own life."

Why adhere to outmoded principles that are not honored or respected by the enemy?!

Quote

If a reporter becomes a combatant it puts all journos at risk. This was one of a number of the reasons why Geraldo Rivera was so villified by reporters when he went Afghanistan. He was packing heat and even showed it off on network. Stupid jerk made all journos trying to cover the story instant and defenseless targets.

I think that the only thing the stupid jerk did wrong was let out the word that some journalists were armed.

Are we dealing with an enemy that will kill all of an enemy military unit if they can, but leave the embedded reporter alive, because they're so noble and principled and observe his non-combatant status? NO. So there is no reason to try to maintain a useless and archaic non-combatant-type status for reporters.

It is not fair to blame Rivera for being unwilling to go out in harm's way with no means of defending himself.

If that CARE lady had had a gun herself, and had she not eschewed armed escorts, they together might have fought off her kidnapers.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[quade 4]

Please see post above about the restrictions placed on reporters and weapons.

Embeds are NOT permitted to carry personal firearms.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Michele 1]

Quote

I didn't say that's why he was tossed out by the military, I said that's one of the reasons he was hated by the other reporters.

That said, it IS against the rules laid down by the military for embeds

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize they weren't allowed to carry weapons...I would think that they would be allowed to carry, but then that's just my opinion.

Quote

That has nothing to do with whether or not they've become involved in the story . . . it's simply a matter of what goes first in the news.

What's the more important story; gang riots in street or Disneyland opens new ride? Gang riots -always- will run before ride openings -- ALWAYS.

Agreed...but it speaks to a mentality that I think can either create problems, or not address them as they arise. Is it dangerous to be involved? Sure...but if they could do something to save a life, I would hope they do that rather than record a story in hopes of getting the first 5 minutes on the news, or the front page top fold in their rag.

Quote

As I recall . . . the story went something to the effect of . . . some shady types invite reporter to see something, reporter knows not what. The reporter suspects something, but has no idea what they're about to actually do. They stop car, get out and open the trunk, pull out a missle and fire it off. They then leave the reporter by the side of the road.

What was the reporter -supposed- to do? There's nothing she (I think it was a she but I might be wrong) could do to stop it and they left.

Know what? I wasn't there...but I will say that I would without a doubt film the car, the license plate, note the area I was picked up at, and I would have, without a doubt, done some questioning in the car.

And frankly, someone asks me if I want to "see" something and then not tell me what, and I don't know these people fairly well, is not someone I will get in the car with. That would lead me to believe that there is quite a bit more to the story than what we seem to recall...you know? Especially in an area of such contention...and a woman (if you're correct...I don't remember) in that community. Seems rather farfetched. And again, if I recall correctly, the reporter didn't give the information to the authorities, but instead sent it out to the news manager, and it was edited and sold/aired widely before the authorities got it.

Irrespective of that, there would be no way that I wouldn't be trying to id the guys, their car, the surroundings, or which group they belonged to, or whatever I could identify, and I sure would not air the tape until the authorities had thoroughly vetted it.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~