Sunday, October 15, 2006

Why the Blue Shirts and other concerns

Minimizing Risks in Conflict Zones

How journalists conduct themselves in the field may help save their lives, and the unwritten rules can vary from conflict to conflict. In some situations, for example, it may make sense for journalists to have a high profile, while in others, drawing attention to yourself may draw a hostile reaction from combatants. Talking with seasoned reporters who have covered the region is essential; veteran correspondents are usually generous with advice to newcomers.
Clothing and Culture
Journalists should be mindful of the kind and color of clothes they wear in war zones. Members of the media should always place prominent labels on their clothing (including helmets) that clearly identify them as press. Journalists who accompany armed combatants—irrespective of whether the combatants are uniformed— must consider how their own clothes may look from a distance. Bright and light colors that reflect a lot of sunlight may make a journalist too conspicuous. But wearing camouflage or military green could make journalists targets. Depending on the terrain, dark blue or dark brown may be preferable. In particular, some photojournalists prefer black because it doesn’t reflect light, but some combatants, especially rebel forces, often wear black. Of course, journalists should also respect local sensibilities. This includes men and women dressing as decorum may require. Foreign journalists of both sexes should also be aware of practices that could be offensive in some cultures.
Journalists covering conflicts should never carry arms or travel with other journalists who carry weapons. Doing so jeopardizes a journalist’s status as a neutral observer and can make combatants view correspondents as legitimate military targets. In some particularly dangerous conflicts, journalists have hired armed guards. The practice first became widespread among television crews and reporters covering Somalia in the early 1990s after journalists traveling without armed guards were robbed at gunpoint. Journalists who use armed guards, however, should recognize that they may be jeopardizing their status as neutral observers. For example, CNN crews used armed guards in northern Iraq in 2003. On one occasion, unidentified attackers shot CNN’s vehicle, which was clearly marked with “Press,” and CNN’s hired guard returned fire. The gunmen continued to shoot the vehicle as it turned around and drove away. CNN International president, Chris Cramer, defended the network’s use of armed guards as necessary to protect CNN personnel in Iraq. Robert Menard, secretary- general of the Paris-based press freedom watchdog group Reporters sans Frontières, however, criticized CNN, saying that the practice “risks endangering all other reporters.” Many broadcasters now regularly employ experts from private security firms to accompany their news crews in the field, but these experts are not armed and primarily provide guidance on movements in conflict areas, including large street demonstrations.
Participatory Behavior
For their own protection, journalists should not engage in participatory behavior on the battlefield, such as identifying enemy locations, and they must be mindful at all times of their behavior, language, and attitude toward combatants. Whether they are embedded with military forces or traveling independently, the only role that journalists should play on the battlefield is that of observer. All journalists must remember that participatory behavior while traveling with combatants—or anywhere within a conflict area— an put them and their colleagues in danger.

5 comentarios:

Jade said...

Great information Chrisitane!

Viewers often think it's theatrics at hand when a reporter begins a package with, "we're reporting from an undisclosed location tonight", but it's a safety measure not only for the troops they're with, but it has more to do with the security measures being taken by the network.

Also, foreign governments monitor outgoing broadcasts. If while watching a pacakge if there isn't much information being provided, it's because most likely information is being censored.

Lee said...

This is great information. I understand why news organizations are hiring armed guards but I always wondered if that affected their status as civilians under the Geneva Conventions.

courtney01 said...

Thank you so much for this information. It answers a lot of questions--especially after seeing Anderson, Nic, and Peter all wearing blue shirts while reporting from Afghanistan one night.

ivy said...

@christiane -- excellent post! you made me look differnt at the famous Blue Shirts, ok, I'll stop making fun of them -) It's a tricky question about having armed guards vs. being perseived neutral, but in places where journalists are targets, how else can they protect themselves?

@lee-- good observation. I wonder how boundaries can be determined where civilians are targeted as much or when it's hard to establish who's civilian and who isn't.

Jade said...

And if you'll look closely, Nic Robertson'a vest also has his blood type on it for medics in case of an emergency.

Lee...hiring bodyguards does not affect their "civilian" status while reporting a conflict. Journalists are protected by international law which forbids direct attacks on civilians.


Don't think for me. Don't assume what I want to hear or read. Give me facts. Give me reasons. But not yours. Bring me debate. Enlighten me. Today, accountability is masked behind anonymity; bylines are hidden by zeros and ones. Everyone publishes; everyone is "in the know." Ethics are non-existent. Speculation is king. The truth is masked and a hostage. Empowered by our minds, WE ARE THE FREAKSPEAKERS!


This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues of environmental, political, news and humanitarian significance. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such material as provided in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with the title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this blog is distributed and available without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

If your obsession against us and our content endures, you might find more information at: Law.

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the blog owner.