‘Killing Journalism’Report by Charlie Beckett, Director, POLISSponsored by the BBC College of Journalism

‘Killing Journalism’ A day of events looking at war reporting at POLIS, the forumfor debate and research in to journalism and society forum at the London School of Economics and the London College of Communication.

Report by Charlie Beckett, Director, POLIS

Sponsored by the BBC College of Journalism

POLIS – Journalism and Society

POLIS is a joint venture by the London School of Economicsand the London College of Communication. Its mission is to study and debate the changing relationship betweenjournalism and society in the UK and internationally.

It holds public lectures, seminars for journalists, and conferenceson the news media.

POLIS also has a Fellowship programme for journalists and a series of major research projects.

For more information go to the website: www.lse.ac.uk/POLIS

To join in the debate about journalism and society at POLIS go to the Director’s blog: www.charliebeckett.org

To contact POLIS email us at: POLIS@lse.ac.uk

POLISLondon School of EconomicsHoughton StreetLondonWC2A 2AE

Tom Rayner was the POLIS researcher for the Killing Journalismevents and for this report.

The administrator for the events was Laura Kyrke-Smith,Assistant to the POLIS Director.

Thanks to Alex Gerlis from the BBC College of Journalism for helping to organise the events.

This publication was designed by thedesignpracticewww.thedesignpractice.net

Is modern war killing journalism?Executive summary

As modern warfare becomes increasingly civilian and increasingly complex, the challengesfacing war reporting intensify – as the recent deaths of Terry Lloyd and Anna Politkovskayaconfirm. In this light, POLIS held an intensive half-day of discussions with a select group of some of Britain’s leading war correspondents, news executives, security experts and the military. Conflict journalism is undoubtedly imperfect, in both its organisation and itscoverage. But POLIS believes that by improving the safety for journalists in conflict zoneswe can improve journalism; and by debating the issues involved we can improve publicunderstanding and encourage wider critique of war making in contemporary society.

Key findings – making war reporting safer

• Most major news agencies are taking action to adapt the way they operate,developing safety policies and enlisting local staff to supportjournalists reporting from conflict zones – but journalist safety can and must be improved.

• Media organisations should invest in putting suitably trained people on the ground, while individual journalists also have a responsibility to ensurethat they are adequately prepared to handle conflict situations.

• The military has an important role in improving journalist safety,especiallywhere journalists are embedded.

• The military and the media should establish closer links through openpassage of information and designated liaison staff.

• Media organisations should become more aware of the emotional stressesthat come with reporting conflict – and ensure that their correspondentshave adequate support.

• The UN and NGOs should continue to work together towards greaterprotection for war journalists under international law and treaties.

Key findings – covering conflict

• Journalists cannot be neutral observers; instead, the media is increasinglyseen as weapons in the conflict, and as such are targeted as combatants.

• Journalists cannot claim to offer a complete picture of the wars they cover,but they can do more to tell the audience what is missing and the contextthey operate within.

• TV coverage is changing as imagery becomes more graphic and the publicbecomes more tolerant of this footage.

• The internet means that ‘non-journalists’ can also be war reporters, raisingissues of editorial control. Fake and enhanced material is also becomingmore commonplace,and media organisations need to ask themselves howto retain their audiences’ trust.

IntroductionTerry Lloyd and Anna Politkovskaya were two very differentjournalists and yet their deaths both symbolise the threat to conflict reporting. Terry Lloyd was an outstanding TV news foreign correspondent in the finest tradition of packagereporting from the most difficult of war zones. AnnaPolitkovskaya was more of a ‘freelance’ operator driven by an investigative and campaigning zeal to expose the horror of the violence that followed the end of the Soviet Union.

A British Coroner’s Court has ruled that Terry Lloyd was killed unlawfully by American troops during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It’s possible that there may now be legal action takenagainst those American soldiers. In 2006 Anna Politkovskaya was executed in her own apartment, apparently by contractkillers, probably as a consequence of her fearless inquiries in tocorruption and human rights abuses in Russia. The internationalcommunity was deeply shocked and pressure has now been put on Russian President Putin who has promised to bring herkillers to justice. No-one may ever be brought to book forthese killings. That is usually the case when journalists are killed.The two killings highlight how journalists are killed in war and by states at war with freedom. But both cases also offer somehope that the world is starting to recognise that murdering the messenger is a political as well as criminal act.

War reporting is an ancient job and it has always beendangerous. Xenophon reported on the Greek wars with the Persians, Beha-ed-Din witnessed Richard The Lionheartmassacring prisoners during the Crusades, while WilliamHoward Russell used the telegram to report the disaster of the Charge of the Light Brigade to Times readers. WinstonChurchill reported on the Boer War for the Morning Postand became part of the story when he was captured.Journalists have always been at risk during the chaos of battle.

But it does seem that more journalists are being killed thanever before. Many are murdered by their own governments or by criminals. Others die in accidents while under thepressure of a conflict situation. But many are killed as a directresult of covering a civil or general war. Warfare has never been more chaotic. Conflict in the 21st century is rarelybetween clearly defined sides on a clearly defined battlefield.The reasons for war are more complex and the differencebetween civilian and combatants has been blurred. This makes it harder to understand a conflict and much more dangerous to be there to report it.

War remains the big story. It is the moment when civilisation goes wrong in the most appalling manner. It is the chaos thatchanges history and the period of brutality that wrecks lives and communities. It has the most dramatic short-term and the most profound long-term consequences. Because we fear war and because we want to reduce the amount of conflict in the world, it is vital that journalists bear witness.

The price paid

When media mixes with conflict, it is a lethal cocktail. The deathfigures recently produced by Rodney Pinder of the InternationalNews Safety Institute (INSI) bring the consequences of the new relationship between the media and global conflict into stark relief. In 2005 INSI recorded 147 deaths of news media personnel, 79 of these were shot, stabbed, bombed or beaten to death. Journalists are being killed because of theirreporting, not just from being caught in the crossfire. People arequite literally dieing to tell the story. And just 1 in 10 of thoseaccused of killing journalists globally have been prosecuted.A total of 34 were killed in Iraq, the vast majority by insurgents.Almost all were Iraqis, reporters and cameraman in the main,who bear the burden of keeping the world informed about their country’s agony. A total of 137 news media personnel have died in Iraq since 2003. After Iraq, the deadliest countrieswere Sri Lanka, Guyana – where five newspaper printtechnicians were murdered by gunmen in one incident on 8 August – Philippines, India, Brazil and Argentina. In Somalia,a country also not technically at war, the BBC producer KatePeyton was killed in 2005 and independent producer MartinAdler was killed this year. Anybody recognisable as foreign and a journalist is now seen as a legitimate target for gunmen as well as the ‘official’ military.

And journalists are being assaulted in other ways. One of themost worrying trends has been to take journalists hostage –especially in Iraq and the Palestinian territories. Speaking at the POLIS event the Sky News’ Head of Foreign operationsAdrian Wells said:

‘Journalists see themselves in a bubble as observers, but we are now regarded as being part of the conflict, legitimate targets for kidnapping and reprisals.’

During 2005 Guardian reporter Rory Carroll was kidnapped for36 hours, Jill Carroll of the Christian Science Monitor was takenfor 82 days.

‘Journalists see themselves in a bubble as observers, but we are now regarded as being part of the conflict, legitimate targets for kidnapping and reprisals.’ Adrian Wells

Charlie Beckett, POLIS and Rodney Pinder, INSI

How has reporting changed onthe ground?The major news organisations have already begun to adapt theway they operate. All major western news organisations haveadapted safety policies for their conflict coverage. Most now use security advisors or staff to help improve safety for foreignteams. Iraq is where the use of local staff has been mostextensive, in some cases to almost replace teams from the UK.This is partly because of the cost of maintaining operationsthere, but mainly because of safety considerations. ITN’sChannel 4 News has contracted an independent team toprovide original material from Iraq. But does the combination of the risk of going out on the road and the use of local staffmean that journalists aren’t able to do their job? The BBC’sWorld Affairs Editor John Simpson has had to defend theCorporation’s ability to cover Iraq properly. He insists that it is still possible to function as a journalist:

‘The BBC Baghdad bureau works exactly like each of our other bureaux around the world.’

At the POLIS conference, Paul Wood, Defence Correspondent for the BBC, said that they could not continue their work with Iraqi staff, who are now absolutely crucial to the BBC’soperations in Baghdad… ‘they have the ‘camouflage’ that lets themwork slightly more safely’, he said.

And the BBC’s Developing World Correspondent David Loyn who has also been in Afghanistan and Iraq insisted that even ifthe journalism is compromised it must continue:

‘We have a duty to report conflict – we are right to spend every penny that we do, even if its only for a conversation with an Iraqi translator about hisjourney into work that morning. We can reportconflict even if we don’t see every bullet that is fired.’

James Hider, Baghdad Correspondent for The Times alsoaccepted that it was impossible to operate without local help.He said,‘It is crucial to build long-term relationships with Iraqi staff.When Rory Carroll was kidnapped The Times were thinking of pullingout of Iraq, but if they had done that we would have very quickly lostthose important relationships that we had built with people on theground.There are very few places in Baghdad where you can gofreely, so we are dependent on the help of Iraqis to be able to reportfrom those places. Security agencies in Iraq are now finally managingto persuade Iraqis working for the western news media to undertakesome formal safety training, and there is a noticeable improvement as a result’.

Away from Iraq, conflicts have become less defined. The war in Afghanistan is a combination of guerrilla warfare in thecountryside and terror attacks in the cities. And coverage of dysfunctional countries like Somalia can prove fatal

Paul Wood, BBC

James Hider,The Times Baghdad

because it is impossible to predict when the all-pervading chaos can turn dangerous.

All agreed that there are more media organisations sending more journalists to more war zones than ever before. That is good for the potential flow of information to the public.But it also means that the media is more visible to combatants.So it is more important that ever that those organisations adopt the highest standards of safety preparation and conduct.

How should safety beimproved?There was broad consensus that safety training was an area in which improvements could be made. It is one thing to have safety training but is it good enough? Paul Greeves, Head of High Risk for the BBC accepted that the current hostileenvironment training was inadequate in assuming that one size fits all, he added ‘It is impossible to cater for the varied needs of different situations’.

Vaughan Smith of the Frontline Club, who was previously a freelance cameraman with experience in a number ofdifferent war zones put forward his own view of how training,preparation and working practices need to be changed.In a presentation looking at the safety of television crewsworking in conflict zones Smith concluded that half of all news casualties were avoidable through better practice.

‘Nobody has lost their life through bad writing, or bad camera work, but they have by bad practicalorganisation. A crew would never cover a story witha camera that didn’t work, yet they will still go intodangerous conditions with a vehicle that does not work. It is essential that the industry works towardmore effective logistics and field craft.’

Tales of journalists running out of essential personal medication,lacking fitness, being unable to change a tyre and not having a full tank of fuel in situations where rapid getaways could benecessary were just a few of the horror stories that VaughnSmith used to prove his point.

One of Vaughan Smith’s central arguments was that operationsshould not necessarily be directed from offices in the UK.Experts on the ground, who are specialists in the area in whichthe journalist is to work, are in a superior position to assess thepotential risks involved. To make this an effective reality, mediaorganisations need to invest in putting suitably trained peopleon the ground who can fulfil this role. To do this, however, Smithbelieves it is necessary to separate logistics from editorialcontrol. This is a controversial issue. Paul Greeves of the BBCsaid that in reality things were not that easy:

Vaughan Smith, Frontline Club

SOME INSI SAFETY TIPS

1. Be physically and mentally prepared. Go on a HostileEnvironment course.

2. Ensure appropriate jabs and carry basic medical kitwith clean needles. Wear internationally recognisedbracelet with caduceus symbol and record of allergies,blood group etc. If in a conflict area with US forces,consider writing your blood group on your boots –that’s what American troops do, so that’s where theirmedics would look first.

3. Learn a few useful phrases in the local language, mostessentially foreign press or journalist.

4. Do not move alone in a conflict zone.

5. Think twice about moving across open, or poorlycovered ground, with troops. Snipers are unlikely to distinguish between combatants and reporters.

6. Seek the advice of local authorities and residents about possible dangers before travelling. Check the road immediately ahead at safe intervals. Informyour headquarters and colleagues remaining at base of where you are going, your intended ETA andexpected return. Check in frequently. Beware ofcarrying maps with markings that might be construedas military.

7. Meet unfamiliar contacts in public places and tell youroffice or trusted colleague your plans.

8. Never carry a weapon or travel with journalists who do. Seek the agreement of soldiers beforeshooting images.

9. Carry picture identification. Do not pretend to beother than a journalist.

10. Carry cigarettes and other giveaways as sweeteners.

‘It’s a question of how you balance the risks out. Ourjob is not just managing and quantifying risk but alsoto ask whether the risk is worth the story – so theseparation of editorial and logistics can never be thatclearly defined.’

And all participants agreed that it was a nonsense to pretend that war reporting can ever be made entirely safe. By its verynature conflict journalism is about putting the journalist in theway of harm. Journalism is a business driven by a competitiveethos that means teams in the field have to make their ownjudgements. But what was also agreed was that it was no longertenable to use that as an excuse for bad preparation and flawedback-up systems.

Paul Greeves, BBC

The role of the militaryThe military also have an important role in helping to improvejournalist safety. Andy Steele, Head of Media Operations at the Ministry of Defence, said that the British army were nowmuch more aware of the importance of journalists being able to work from war zones.

‘The media didn’t use to be considered by the military, now they are.You are now part of ourobjectives. What people in the UK,Afghanistan and Iraq think about our involvement is inseparablytied to our wider military objectives.’

The rulebook that governs the military’s relationship with the media is the MoD ‘Green Book’, first drawn up after theFalklands War, which Steele described as ‘just the first step in articulating our relationship with the media’.

One of the most controversial areas of that relationship is embedding. This is the practice whereby journalists areincorporated in to a military unit which provides them protection and access to conflict zones. The BBC’s David Loyn warned that embedding was now less satisfactory for the journalist:

‘When I was embedded in 2003, nothing live orrecorded was ever pre-listened to before it went out. Now censorship is increasing. There was a brief period in Iraq between 2003 and 2004 when embedding worked, but it has become much harder.I think that early period will be looked back on ashalcyon days.’

But Andy Steele of the MoD said that the military did accept that embedding needed to be revived in Afghanistan in a moreserious way.

‘We are interested in helping the media get to the right places. We want to put the media intoplaces for long enough to give them more thanjust a snap shot. For a fuller understanding they need more time.’

But journalists do not always want to be fully embedded. SeanMaguire of Reuters praised partial embedding or ‘embed andbreakfast’ – where journalists travel with the military and thendo their own thing:

‘The best thing about it is that you can go out andspeak to normal Iraqis while still being facilitated bythe military.’

James Hider of The Times conceded that the British Army were more helpful than the Americans at facilitating themovement of journalists, such as allowing them onto flights fromBaghdad to Basra without necessarily being embedded.But he added that more needs to be done, ‘It is in the military’s

‘The media didn’t use to beconsidered by the military, now they are.You are now part of ourobjectives. What people in the UK,Afghanistan and Iraq think aboutour involvement is inseparably tiedto our wider military objectives.’ Andy Steele

Sean Maguire, Reuters

interest to enable us to get to places such as Samarra, which is a safe pocket, but no journalist can get there because the roads are too dangerous’.

The British army may now have a more developedcommunications strategy, but it is clear that cooperationbetween the military and media organisations is a complex and controversial area. Sandy Macintyre from APTN was keento reinforce the importance, and centrality, of independentreporting. He also was sceptical about how much cooperationwould be offered when the MoD are preoccupied with morepressing military issues:

‘Our hearts sink every time there is a conflict because we know that we’ll hear those words you guys sort it out.’

The limitations of media-military cooperation, however, wereclear. Paul Greeves warned that there is a difference betweentheory and practice.

‘Let’s be realistic. There will inevitably be times whenthe media and the military come into confrontationalsituations, our job is to report you, not to work with you unquestionably.You don’t want mediacrawling all over operations that are going wrong.We need to be adults and state explicitly what wewant to cover and you have to decide whether you are prepared to facilitate that – it won’t alwayshappen. The military needs to understand that nomatter how they want us to cover stuff, most oftheir ideas about good stories would never be put on the news by editors back home.’

Media/military liaison?Paul Greeves, the BBC’s Head of High Risk also put forward the idea of having a designated Liaison Officer in places like Iraqto enable an information passage between the media and themilitary:

‘What we actually need is one of our own sitting out there who can get the proper message across tothe military. Somebody who is not preoccupied withmilitary concerns. They would not be editoriallyinvolved, purely a safety role.’

This person would keep track of where individuals were,meaning that the military would be aware of unilateraljournalists operating in areas where they were not embedded.Greeves proposed that such a role could be sponsored by INSIwho would sit above the competitive rivalries of differentorganisations. They would understand the needs of the mediafully and would not have to balance relations with the media with other military concerns.

Sandy MacIntyre,APTN

The military have liaison officers at local levels, so it should not be impossible for the media to have something similar.The passage of information is fundamental to ensuring journalist safety – the military would be able to warn journalistsof specific danger areas and know where they were without having to provide direct security. The general workingrelationship would be made more efficient if the military had one designated point of liaison, rather than having to deal with all the different organisations and freelancers who were workingin the theatre. Rodney Pinder of INSI was supportive of theproposition,‘The media could work together to establish this person,its simply a question of getting the military to allow him to be there’.

Journalists as combatantsOne issue that emerged from the day’s discussions is howjournalists have become dragged in to the conflict by thewarring parties.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind sent troops in to Bosnia in 1992 as DefenceSecretary and he was also Foreign Secretary under John Major.During the POLIS public debate he warned that :

‘Journalists have become a weapon in the conflict in themselves…Those involved in conflicts haverealised that they can use the media to further their cause – particularly in asymmetric conflicts,where events are often engineered purely for their televisual importance.’

How often are ‘military operations’ put on for the cameras? Andwhen the action is real, how free are the journalists to report what they see?

Sky News’ Foreign Editor Adrian Wells described how newsorganisations are under direct pressure from warring factions –most recently in the Israel/Hezbollah conflict.

‘Sky News had live satellite links in South Lebanon andin northern Israeli. We were able to broadcast liveimages of Katyusha rockets being fired from southernLebanon and those same rockets landing in northern Israel. Our team in Israel came underenormous pressure from Israel, claiming we were aiding Hezbollah in the targeting of their rockets.And the Hezbollah complained to our Lebanon teamthat we were helping the Israelis to spot where therockets were being launched from.’

He said that this created real problems on the ground for hisreporting team and tough ethical decisions to be made back at base by senior management to balance safety and reporting.It was also pointed out that while it used to be the case thatjournalists would often leave a war-zone to file copy or sendpictures home, now they were able to send material directly

‘Journalists have become a weapon in the conflict in themselves…’ Sir Malcolm Rifkind

Sir Malcolm Rifkind

without leaving the conflict area. At the same time the warringparties were also able to see their coverage via the Internet or Satellite TV. And if they didn’t like what they saw they wouldbe able to take it out directly on the journalists still in theatre,said the BBC’s David Loyn:

‘War reporting has always been dangerous, but for several reasons it is getting more so. Particularlywhen people are being targeted because they were journalists – this is something quite new.’

What do media organisationsdo when things go wrong?Chris Elliott, Managing Editor of The Guardian, experiencedhaving a journalist from his newspaper kidnapped, and having to deal with the situation from offices in London. He told the POLIS seminar that he thought his newspaper respondedwell but that it forced the Guardian to reappraise it’s approach to safety.

‘There has been a massive change at our newspapersince the kidnapping of Rory Carroll. There wasnothing more moving, or more practical, than whenwe got all our foreign correspondents together after Rory’s release to re-think what we could do to improve our practice. We did have an organisationthat we could call for advice in the event ofsomething like that happening, but it was incrediblydifficult time, and required a great deal of work on our part. It was crucial that we had a small coredecision-making team who knew exactly what wasgoing on, consisting of the editor, myself, the head of Guardian Newspapers Limited and the Head of Communications. Even with this there was stillhuge amounts of confusion. We thought we werecontrolling affairs, but then so did Rory’s family, as didthe Foreign Office as well as the Irish Government.’

Chris Elliot went on to describe the approach that hisnewspaper now takes to conflict situations, We don’t send peopleto places like Iraq without a hostile environments course. If they aresent then they can walk away whenever they feel that they don’twant to be there anymore. Some old hands are very reluctant to dohostile environments training, though. He also raised another issuewhich news media organisations are increasingly coming torecognise – the emotional stresses that come with reportingconflict. Chris Elliott said he regretted not being more alert tothe long-term effects that reporting from hostile environmentscan have on journalists. In relation to this, Sandy MacIntyre of APTN, drew attention to the work being done currently by The Dart Centre, who provide anonymous counselling to journalists. The basis of The Dart Centre’s work is to provide

Chris Elliot, Guardian

support while avoiding the stigma for journalists seekingcounselling in-house. It is also pushing for more preparatoryemotional training to be introduced as well as the conventionalpost-conflict counselling.

To make initiatives like this effective, however, Sandy MacIntyrestressed the need for cooperation:

‘This requires a cultural shift away from the stigmaattached to emotional and safety concerns – thisneeds media organisations to work together.’

But working together is easier said than done in the highlycompetitive world of news. Rodney Pinder of INSI said, ‘Thereare prizes for getting cameras ever closer to the action, but it is stillthe case that the vast majority of journalists are the only professionalson the battlefield without sufficient training’.

Pinder claims that the competitive and technical advances haveactually made things more dangerous, as they encouragejournalists to take greater risks.

‘Few employers recognise their duty of care for their journalists, and put pressure on them to get the story at all costs. This amounts to organisationalneglect. For things to improve we need action fromjournalists themselves as well as the internationalcommunity, the military and news organisations.’

‘There are prizes for getting camerasever closer to the action, but it is stillthe case that the vast majority ofjournalists are the only professionalson the battlefield without sufficienttraining’. Rodney Pinder of INSI

Legal moves on safetyOrganisations like INSI and the Committee for Protectionof Journalists have been working towards greaterprotection for war journalists under international law and treaties. They are trying to get the UN Human Rights Council to pass a motion to remove impunityfor all those responsible for killing journalists. Despite backing from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan,the Council has so far failed even to adopt a motionrecommending a new study on those tragedies to beundertaken by the UN Special Rapporteur for freedom of opinion and expression.

But there are limits to the legal approach. Participants in the POLIS events were clear, for example, that they did not agree with the idea of an ‘Emblem’ to designatejournalists in the same way that Red Cross workers are supposed to be protected by their symbol. Whilejournalists often use informal ‘Press’ signs most of those at the POLIS events felt that making it a legal requirementwould simply encourage factions to target the media.

‘I suspect in the next few years we will see stronger and strongerimages due to the globalisation of the video media’. Adrian Wells

Is modern war changing conflictjournalism?It was clear from the day’s discussion that conflict journalism is difficult and dangerous and that it cannot claim to offer a complete picture. But Sky News’ Adrian Wells defended the media’s mission:

‘Large swathes of places like Iraq do go unreported,but a partial view is valuable, so long as it is clearthat’s what it is, and we try to get other angles byother means…it’s better than having nothing at all.I will not apologise for the media following conflict.It is the essence of what we do.’

But Sir Malcolm Rifkind felt that journalists should strive to domore to tell the audience what is missing:

‘Television news especially, can distort the relativeimportance of different aspects of conflict. Journalistsneed to be more explicit about the conditions fromwhich they are reporting. And the media needs to domore to recognise that just because certain aspectsof conflict are not easy to represent visually, does notmean they should be ignored.’

But what is the future for conflict reporting? With the growth in the number of international news channels it is clear that the public has access to a vast array of different outlets, manywith very different styles and standards. Al Jazeera has added a whole new dimension to the reporting of the Middle East,showing events from a more ‘Arab’ perspective, including moreexplicit footage.

As journalists try ever harder to impress their audiences withthe full horror of conflict it could be that we are going toundergo a cultural revolution in western TV coverage as well,said Adrian Wells:

‘Some of the images coming out of the Lebanonconflict were stronger than we have seen for a number of years, such as Fergal Keane’s reportsshowing pictures of young children crushed by rubble being carried out. Are we right to show these images? Should we hold them back? I suspect inthe next few years we will see stronger and strongerimages due to the globalisation of the video media.’

The internet is also changing war reporting. It means thatmaterial now moves around the globe and stays in hyperspacelong after transmission. It allows non-journalists to put theirown footage and eye-witness accounts on the web. And itenables news organisations to gather that material and use it as part of their own coverage. And all that raises issues ofeditorial control.

As news agencies have found out, digital technology makes it easier to enhance or fake material. It also means that thewarring factions can monitor coverage and seek to influence it. Perhaps this means that the audience will need to trust the media organisations even more. And that means that the role of the dedicated war correspondent at the scene of conflict reporting with their own eyes will remain the most valuable – and the most dangerous – form of journalism.

ConclusionPOLIS believes that there is much more to be done to enablejournalist safety to keep up with the increasing dangers of warreporting. It matters because none of us want to see colleaguestraumatised or injured, let alone lose their lives doing their job.It matters to the public because they have a right to know asmuch as possible about what happens when war breaks out.

We hope that Killing Journalism will help stimulate good practiceand further debate about this most difficult area of journalism.We would like to thank everyone who took part and lookforward to continuing the discussion on the POLIS websites and elsewhere.

Useful contacts:

BBC College of Journalism – Alex Gerlis alex.gerlis@bbc.co.uk

The Dart Centre for Journalism and Traumahttp://www.dartcenter.org

The International News Safety Institute (INSI)http://www.newssafety.com/

The Committee for the Protection of Journalistshttp://www.cpj.org/

The Frontline Club is Britain’s foremost debating forum for foreign journalism: http://www.thefrontlineclub.com/

THE INSI SAFETY CODE

1. The preservation of life and safety is paramount.

2. Assignments to war and other danger zones must bevoluntary and only involve experienced news gatherersand those under their direct supervision.

3. All journalists and media staff must receive appropriatehostile environment and risk awareness training beforebeing assigned to a danger zone.

4. Employers should ensure before assignment thatjournalists are fully up to date on the political, physicaland social conditions prevailing where they are due to work.

5. Employers must provide efficient safety equipment and medical and health safeguards.

6. All journalists should be afforded personal insurance.

7. Employers should provide free access to confidentialcounselling for journalists involved in coverage ofdistressing events.

8. Journalists are neutral observers. No member of themedia should carry a firearm.

9. Governments and all military and security forces areurged to respect the safety of journalists in their areasof operation.

10. Security forces must never harass, intimidate orphysically attack journalists going about their lawfulbusiness.

£5.00