Killing Journalism by Charlie Beckett

8/9/2019 Killing Journalism by Charlie Beckett

1/20

KillingJournalism

Report by Charlie Beckett, Director, POLIS

Sponsored by the BBC College of Journalism


2/20


3/20

Killing JournalismA day of events looking at war reporting at POLIS, the forum

for 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


4/20

POLIS Journalism and Society

POLIS is a joint venture by the London School of Economics

and the London College of Communication. Its mission

is to study and debate the changing relationship between

journalism and society in the UK and internationally.

It holds public lectures, seminars for journalists, and conferences

on 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 Directors blog: www.charliebeckett.org

To contact POLIS email us at: [email protected]

POLIS

London School of Economics

Houghton Street

London

WC2A 2AE

Tom Rayner was the POLIS researcher for the Killing Journalism

events 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 thedesignpractice

www.thedesignpractice.net


5/20

Is modern war killing journalism?

Executive summary

As modern warfare becomes increasingly civilian and increasingly complex, the challenges

facing war reporting intensify as the recent deaths of Terry Lloyd and Anna Politkovskaya

confirm. In this light, POLIS held an intensive half-day of discussions with a select group

of some of Britains leading war correspondents, news executives, security experts andthe military. Conflict journalism is undoubtedly imperfect, in both its organisation and its

coverage. But POLIS believes that by improving the safety for journalists in conflict zones

we can improve journalism; and by debating the issues involved we can improve public

understanding 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 theyoperate, developing safety policies and enlisting local staff to support

journalists reporting from conflict zones but journalist safety canand must be improved.

Media organisations should invest in putting suitably trained people onthe ground,while individual journalists also have a responsibility to ensure

that 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 correspondents

have 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 context

they 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 becoming

more commonplace,and media organisations need to ask themselves how

to retain their audiences trust.


6/20

Introduction

Terry Lloyd and Anna Politkovskaya were two very different

journalists 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 package

reporting from the most difficult of war zones. Anna

Politkovskaya 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 Coroners Court has ruled that Terry Lloyd was

killed unlawfully by American troops during the invasion of Iraq

in 2003. Its possible that there may now be legal action taken

against those American soldiers. In 2006 Anna Politkovskaya

was executed in her own apartment, apparently by contract

killers, probably as a consequence of her fearless inquiries in to

corruption 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 her

killers to justice. No-one may ever be brought to book for

these 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 some

hope 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 been

dangerous. Xenophon reported on the Greek wars withthe Persians, Beha-ed-Din witnessed Richard The Lionheart

massacring prisoners during the Crusades, while William

Howard Russell used the telegram to report the disaster

of the Charge of the Light Brigade to Times readers.Winston

Churchill reported on the Boer War for the Morning Post

and 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 than

ever 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 direct

result of covering a civil or general war. Warfare has never

been more chaotic. Conflict in the 21st century is rarely

between clearly defined sides on a clearly defined battlefield.

The reasons for war are more complex and the difference

between 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 that

changes 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.


7/20

The price paid

When media mixes with conflict, it is a lethal cocktail.The death

figures recently produced by Rodney Pinder of the International

News 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 their

reporting, not just from being caught in the crossfire. People arequite literally dieing to tell the story. And just 1 in 10 of those

accused 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 countrys agony. A total of 137 news media personnel

have died in Iraq since 2003. After Iraq, the deadliest countries

were Sri Lanka,Guyana where five newspaper print

technicians 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 Kate

Peyton was killed in 2005 and independent producer Martin

Adler 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 the

most 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 operations

Adrian 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 for

36 hours, Jill Carroll of the Christian Science Monitor was taken

for 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


8/20

How has reporting changed on

the ground?

The major news organisations have already begun to adapt the

way they operate. All major western news organisations have

adapted safety policies for their conflict coverage. Most now

use security advisors or staff to help improve safety for foreign

teams. Iraq is where the use of local staff has been most

extensive, in some cases to almost replace teams from the UK.

This is partly because of the cost of maintaining operations

there, but mainly because of safety considerations. ITNs

Channel 4 News has contracted an independent team to

provide original material from Iraq. But does the combination

of the risk of going out on the road and the use of local staff

mean that journalists arent able to do their job? The BBCs

World Affairs Editor John Simpson has had to defend the

Corporations ability to cover Iraq properly. He insists thatit 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 BBCs

operations in Baghdad they have the camouflage that lets them

work slightly more safely, he said.

And the BBCs Developing World Correspondent David Loyn

who has also been in Afghanistan and Iraq insisted that even if

the 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 his

journey into work that morning.We can report

conflict even if we dont see every bullet that is fired.

James Hider,Baghdad Correspondent for The Times also

accepted 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 pulling

out of Iraq, but if they had done that we would have very quickly lost

those important relationships that we had built with people on the

ground.There are very few places in Baghdad where you can go

freely, so we are dependent on the help of Iraqis to be able to report

from those places. Security agencies in Iraq are now finally managing

to persuade Iraqis working for the western news media to undertake

some 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 the

countryside and terror attacks in the cities.And coverage

of dysfunctional countries like Somalia can prove fatal

Paul Wood, BBC

James Hider,The Times Baghdad


9/20

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 be

improved?

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,Headof High Risk for the BBC accepted that the current hostile

environment 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 of

different 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 crews

working 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 practical

organisation. A crew would never cover a story with

a camera that didnt work, yet they will still go into

dangerous conditions with a vehicle that does not

work. It is essential that the industry works toward

more 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 be

necessary were just a few of the horror stories that Vaughn

Smith used to prove his point.

One of Vaughan Smiths central arguments was that operations

should not necessarily be directed from offices in the UK.

Experts on the ground,who are specialists in the area in which

the journalist is to work, are in a superior position to assess the

potential risks involved.To make this an effective reality, media

organisations need to invest in putting suitably trained people

on the ground who can fulfil this role. To do this, however, Smith

believes it is necessary to separate logistics from editorial

control.This is a controversial issue. Paul Greeves of the BBC

said that in reality things were not that easy:

Vaughan Smith, Frontline Club


10/20

SOME INSI SAFETY TIPS

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

2. Ensure appropriate jabs and carry basic medical kit

with clean needles.Wear internationally recognised

bracelet 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

thats what American troops do, so thats where their

medics 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 poorly

covered 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. Inform

your headquarters and colleagues remaining at baseof where you are going, your intended ETA and

expected return. Check in frequently. Beware of

carrying maps with markings that might be construed

as military.

7. Meet unfamiliar contacts in public places and tell your

office or trusted colleague your plans.

8. Never carry a weapon or travel with journalists

who do. Seek the agreement of soldiers before

shooting images.

9. Carry picture identification. Do not pretend to be

other than a journalist.

10. Carry cigarettes and other giveaways as sweeteners.

Its a question of how you balance the risks out. Our

job is not just managing and quantifying risk but also

to ask whether the risk is worth the story so the

separation of editorial and logistics can never be that

clearly defined.

And all participants agreed that it was a nonsense to pretend

that war reporting can ever be made entirely safe. By its very

nature conflict journalism is about putting the journalist in the

way of harm. Journalism is a business driven by a competitive

ethos that means teams in the field have to make their own

judgements. But what was also agreed was that it was no longer

tenable to use that as an excuse for bad preparation and flawed

back-up systems.

Paul Greeves, BBC


11/20

The role of the military

The military also have an important role in helping to improve

journalist safety. Andy Steele,Head of Media Operations at

the Ministry of Defence, said that the British army were now

much more aware of the importance of journalists being

able to work from war zones.

The media didnt use to be considered by the

military, now they are.You are now part of our

objectives.What people in the UK,Afghanistan

and Iraq think about our involvement is inseparably

tied to our wider military objectives.

The rulebook that governs the militarys relationship with

the media is the MoD Green Book, first drawn up after the

Falklands 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 are

incorporated in to a military unit which provides them

protection and access to conflict zones.The BBCs David

Loyn warned that embedding was now less satisfactory

for the journalist:

When I was embedded in 2003, nothing live or

recorded was ever pre-listened to before it went

out. Now censorship is increasing. There was a

brief period in Iraq between 2003 and 2004 whenembedding worked, but it has become much harder.

I think that early period will be looked back on as

halcyon days.

But Andy Steele of the MoD said that the military did accept

that embedding needed to be revived in Afghanistan in a more

serious way.

We are interested in helping the media get to

the right places.We want to put the media into

places 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. Sean

Maguire of Reuters praised partial embedding or embed and

breakfast where journalists travel with the military and then

do their own thing:

The best thing about it is that you can go out and

speak to normal Iraqis while still being facilitated by

the military.

James Hider of The Times conceded that the British Army

were more helpful than the Americans at facilitating the

movement of journalists, such as allowing them onto flights from

Baghdad to Basra without necessarily being embedded.

But he added that more needs to be done, It is in the militarys

The media didnt use to be

considered by the military, now

they are.You are now part of our

objectives.What people in the

UK,Afghanistan and Iraq think about

our involvement is inseparably tied

to our wider military objectives.

Andy Steele

Sean Maguire, Reuters


12/20

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 developed

communications strategy, but it is clear that cooperation

between the military and media organisations is a complex

and controversial area. Sandy Macintyre from APTN was keen

to reinforce the importance, and centrality, of independent

reporting. He also was sceptical about how much cooperation

would be offered when the MoD are preoccupied with more

pressing military issues:

Our hearts sink every time there is a conflict

because we know that well hear those words

you guys sort it out.

The limitations of media-military cooperation, however, were

clear. Paul Greeves warned that there is a difference between

theory and practice.

Lets be realistic. There will inevitably be times when

the media and the military come into confrontational

situations,our job is to report you, not to work

with you unquestionably.You dont want media

crawling all over operations that are going wrong.

We need to be adults and state explicitly what we

want to cover and you have to decide whether

you are prepared to facilitate that it wont always

happen.The military needs to understand that no

matter how they want us to cover stuff, most of

their ideas aboutgood stories would never be put

on the news by editors back home.

Media/military liaison?

Paul Greeves, the BBCs Head of High Risk also put forward

the idea of having a designated Liaison Officer in places like Iraq

to 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 to

the military. Somebody who is not preoccupied with

military concerns. They would not be editorially

involved, purely a safety role.

This person would keep track of where individuals were,

meaning that the military would be aware of unilateral

journalists operating in areas where they were not embedded.Greeves proposed that such a role could be sponsored by INSI

who would sit above the competitive rivalries of different

organisations. They would understand the needs of the media

fully and would not have to balance relations with the media

with other military concerns.

Sandy MacIntyre,APTN


13/20

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 journalists

of specific danger areas and know where they were without

having to provide direct security. The general working

relationship would be made more efficient if the military had

one designated point of liaison, rather than having to deal withall the different organisations and freelancers who were working

in the theatre. Rodney Pinder of INSI was supportive of the

proposition,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 combatants

One issue that emerged from the days discussions is howjournalists have become dragged in to the conflict by the

warring parties.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind sent troops in to Bosnia in 1992 as Defence

Secretary 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 themselvesThose involved in conflicts have

realised 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? And

when the action is real, how free are the journalists to report

what they see?

Sky News Foreign Editor Adrian Wells described how news

organisations 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 live

images of Katyusha rockets being fired from southern

Lebanon and those same rockets landing

in northern Israel. Our team in Israel came under

enormous pressure from Israel, claiming we were

aiding Hezbollah in the targeting of their rockets.

And the Hezbollah complained to our Lebanon team

that we were helping the Israelis to spot where the

rockets 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 that

journalists would often leave a war-zone to file copy or send

pictures 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


14/20

without leaving the conflict area. At the same time the warring

parties were also able to see their coverage via the Internet

or Satellite TV. And if they didnt like what they saw they would

be able to take it out directly on the journalists still in theatre,

said the BBCs David Loyn:

War reporting has always been dangerous, but

for several reasons it is getting more so. Particularly

when people are being targeted because they

were journalists this is something quite new.

What do media organisations

do when things go wrong?

Chris Elliott, Managing Editor of The Guardian, experienced

having a journalist from his newspaper kidnapped, and havingto deal with the situation from offices in London. He told

the POLIS seminar that he thought his newspaper responded

well but that it forced the Guardian to reappraise its

approach to safety.

There has been a massive change at our newspaper

since the kidnapping of Rory Carroll.There was

nothing more moving, or more practical, than when

we got all our foreign correspondents together

after Rorys release to re-think what we could do

to improve our practice.We did have an organisation

that we could call for advice in the event of

something like that happening, but it was incredibly

difficult time, and required a great deal of work

on our part. It was crucial that we had a small core

decision-making team who knew exactly what was

going on, consisting of the editor, myself, the head

of Guardian Newspapers Limited and the Head

of Communications. Even with this there was still

huge amounts of confusion.We thought we were

controlling affairs, but then so did Rorys family, as didthe Foreign Office as well as the Irish Government.

Chris Elliot went on to describe the approach that his

newspaper now takes to conflict situations, We dont send people

to places like Iraq without a hostile environments course. If they are

sent then they can walk away whenever they feel that they dont

want to be there anymore. Some old hands are very reluctant to do

hostile environments training, though. He also raised another issue

which news media organisations are increasingly coming to

recognise the emotional stresses that come with reporting

conflict. Chris Elliott said he regretted not being more alert to

the long-term effects that reporting from hostile environments

can 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 Centres work is to provide

Chris Elliot,Guardian


15/20

support while avoiding the stigma for journalists seeking

counselling in-house. It is also pushing for more preparatory

emotional training to be introduced as well as the conventional

post-conflict counselling.

To make initiatives like this effective, however, Sandy MacIntyre

stressed the need for cooperation:

This requires a cultural shift away from the stigmaattached to emotional and safety concerns this

needs media organisations to work together.

But working together is easier said than done in the highly

competitive world of news. Rodney Pinder of INSI said, There

are prizes for getting cameras ever closer to the action, but it is still

the case that the vast majority of journalists are the only professionals

on the battlefield without sufficient training.

Pinder claims that the competitive and technical advances have

actually 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 organisational

neglect. For things to improve we need action from

journalists themselves as well as the international

community, the military and news organisations.

There are prizes for getting cameras

ever closer to the action, but it is still

the case that the vast majority of

journalists are the only professionals

on the battlefield without sufficient

training. Rodney Pinder of INSI

Legal moves on safety

Organisations like INSI and the Committee for Protection

of Journalists have been working towards greater

protection 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 be

undertaken 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 designate

journalists in the same way that Red Cross workers

are supposed to be protected by their symbol.While

journalists often use informal Press signs most of those

at the POLIS events felt that making it a legal requirement

would simply encourage factions to target the media.


16/20

I suspect in the next few years

we will see stronger and stronger

images due to the globalisation

of the video media. Adrian Wells

Is modern war changing conflict

journalism?

It was clear from the days 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 medias mission:

Large swathes of places like Iraq do go unreported,

but a partial view is valuable, so long as it is clear

thats what it is, and we try to get other angles by

other meansits 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 do

more to tell the audience what is missing:

Television news especially, can distort the relative

importance of different aspects of conflict. Journalists

need to be more explicit about the conditions from

which they are reporting. And the media needs to do

more to recognise that just because certain aspects

of conflict are not easy to represent visually, does not

mean 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 more

explicit footage.

As journalists try ever harder to impress their audiences with

the full horror of conflict it could be that we are going to

undergo 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 Keanes reports

showing pictures of young children crushed by

rubble being carried out. Are we right to show

these images? Should we hold them back? I suspect in

the next few years we will see stronger and stronger

images due to the globalisation of the video media.

The internet is also changing war reporting. It means that

material now moves around the globe and stays in hyperspace

long after transmission. It allows non-journalists to put theirown footage and eye-witness accounts on the web.And it

enables news organisations to gather that material and use

it as part of their own coverage.And all that raises issues of

editorial control.


17/20

As news agencies have found out, digital technology makes

it easier to enhance or fake material. It also means that the

warring 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.

Conclusion

POLIS believes that there is much more to be done to enable

journalist safety to keep up with the increasing dangers of war

reporting. It matters because none of us want to see colleagues

traumatised 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 practice

and further debate about this most difficult area of journalism.

We would like to thank everyone who took part and look

forward to continuing the discussion on the POLIS websites

and elsewhere.


18/20

Useful contacts:

BBC College of Journalism Alex Gerlis

[email protected]

The Dart Centre for Journalism and Trauma

http://www.dartcenter.org

The International News Safety Institute (INSI)

http://www.newssafety.com/

The Committee for the Protection of Journalists

http://www.cpj.org/

The Frontline Club is Britains 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 be

voluntary and only involve experienced news gatherers

and those under their direct supervision.

3. All journalists and media staff must receive appropriatehostile environment and risk awareness training before

being assigned to a danger zone.

4. Employers should ensure before assignment that

journalists are fully up to date on the political, physical

and 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 confidential

counselling for journalists involved in coverage of

distressing events.

8. Journalists are neutral observers. No member of the

media should carry a firearm.

9. Governments and all military and security forces are

urged to respect the safety of journalists in their areas

of operation.

10. Security forces must never harass, intimidate or

physically attack journalists going about their lawful

business.


19/20


20/20

5.00

Documents

Killing Journalism by Charlie Beckett