Should Journalist be required to stay out of danger?

If I were at war or a commander in war, I would not treat journalist any different than anyone else on battle field. It is too risky. You have no way of knowing if someone with Press on the front of their shirt is press or an enemy spy. Honestly, journalist should stay far from ISIS unless embedded with friendly troops to cover the war that way.

People like Jim Foley's careless actions putting himself in jeopardy of being captured by sicko humans like ISIS end up putting friendly troops in danger that are then required to go attempt to rescue them.

It should be illegal for journalist to enter a war zone on their own without support from friendly troops. It is not fair that our troops be put in harms way due to poor judgment of journalist or is it?

I understand freedom of the Press but it is naïve to believe the enemy will respect that or respect our own moral values concerning Freedom of Press.

It is unfair for Journalist to place themselves in risk knowing others will have to risk their lives to rescue them when their poor judgment leads to capture.

Needs to stop. You walk into a hornets nest you will get stung.

As long as a journalist knows what the risks are then it should be up to them to decide where they go , within reason.
.

a reply to: Xeven

Does it really make any difference....?

"The first casualty of war is the truth" HW Johnson

originally posted by: opethPA
As long as a journalist knows what the risks are then it should be up to them to decide where they go , within reason.
.

So does their countrymen then have an obligation to rescue them at risk to their own lives when a journalist gets themselves in trouble due to poor judgment?

a reply to: Xeven

And covering wars through embedding isn't objective at all. In fact the whole notion of embedding is a ruse to ensure what is reported is filtered before being released for public consumption. Freelance journalism is and will be the only way impartial reporting gets to the masses from the battlefield. A soldier goes to war knowing they put their life on the line and a good war reporter does too.

originally posted by: Xeven

originally posted by: opethPA
As long as a journalist knows what the risks are then it should be up to them to decide where they go , within reason.
.

So does their countrymen then have an obligation to rescue them at risk to their own lives when a journalist gets themselves in trouble due to poor judgment?

It is a mute point. Journalists cover wars knowing the risks and they certainly don't expect rescuing. Never have I heard a reporter suggest otherwise.

If all journalists stayed out of the dangerous areas, we wouldn't have jobs for new journalists. Let them do their jobs.

Those people who chase Tornadoes and post videos, are you going to tell them that they can't do that. If they get gobbled up by a tornado, maybe the camera will survive and we will get a good video.

originally posted by: LarryLove
a reply to: Xeven

And covering wars through embedding isn't objective at all. In fact the whole notion of embedding is a ruse to ensure what is reported is filtered before being released for public consumption. Freelance journalism is and will be the only way impartial reporting gets to the masses from the battlefield. A soldier goes to war knowing they put their life on the line and a good war reporter does too.

I agree with you. So essentially what your saying is the military, in addition to defending the nation and constitution is also required to support and defend freelance journalism with their lives? I guess that then is the real question at hand.

Is that fair to our militaries? In this case, Obama being CNC, decided indeed that freelance journalism should be supported and defended by our armed forces.

originally posted by: Xeven
So does their countrymen then have an obligation to rescue them at risk to their own lives when a journalist gets themselves in trouble due to poor judgment?

They don't have an obligation but if that is what they are tasked to do then that is what they will try to do.

I'm a firm believer that if you don't want to get burned then don't play with fire. If a reporter doesn't want to get hurt, captured or possibly lose their life then they shouldn't report on war zones.

a reply to: Xeven

No, I am saying war reporting has never demanded protection from the military and never will. In fact, the opposite is true as they would prefer not to have anything to do with embedding as it prevents freedom of press.

This is a good question because when one of our own is harmed (especially in such a brutal manner), we react. If we could all hold to "at your own risk" and not have emotions involved it would help IMO. That isn't possible though.

I don't want to get into a gender thing but I've been told by marines that having women in combat among them can cause issues because there is a strong instinct to wait if she is slower or rescue if she is weaker. They do this with men too but are trained to do what is best for the majority, and this instinct has been shown to cause conflict with that. The point is - we have an inclination to respond simply because we're human. It is natural to be sucked into conflict when some crazy beheads one of our own (unless emotions can be turned off).

There are dedicated journalists who firmly believe that it is their duty to report raw stories that may otherwise never see the light of day. These journalists, cameramen, photographers and their local guides are fully aware of the risks they take when they enter hostile areas.

I sincerely doubt it is a choice that is made lightly.

Whether they pin their hopes on being rescued or not... Well, that's a risk they chose to make.

a reply to: opethPA

I have to agree. If we start limiting where journalists can go, the powers that be will take advantage of it, and the public will not be informed. It's the only way the public has any way on knowing about government corruption and war crimes. It's one of the main reasons our founding fathers found it important to have a free press.

It's a choice made by the journalists to go into a dangerous situation, they know that there is a chance that they might not come back. And it is their choice to make , we don't need more rules to tell people what they can and cannot do.

No, if they want to accept the risk of entering a war zone, I say let them.

I think any mainstream media agency employing them ought to provide private security for any journalist going in however. (Xi, or others such as them), and some sort of liability waiver keeping our troops out of it.

Wikipedia says 63 journalists were killed reporting in Vietnam during the war, I don't know if that's more or less than the current wars, but if they were allowed to report in Nam', I don't see how the current wars could be any worse for journalists.

Edit: I don't think there needs to be a law requiring journalists to have security, I simply believe any ethical employer should bring the option to the table when considering sending someone to a warzone.

a reply to: Xeven

Many Journalists are very brave souls...who are very aware of the dangers of their job.

Many are real truth seekers and they decide to try anyway... knowing that something may happen to them... to let us (we the people) know what is really going on.

I think it is entirely up to the journalist as to the risks they take. Personally, I don't see the need to put oneself in danger to report the news.

Most importantly, an employer should not compel its employees to put themselves in danger to report the news.

Journalist choice on that..

as far as should they expect a rescue attempt... yes because anyone that joins the military especially special AFSC's, or MOS's expect to rescue non-combatants.

Vietnam changed the landscape and the delicate balance of respect for Journalists.

Some go in there because they want the truth. Considering the fact the MSM has belittled the profession, and have turned most of the people into free bloggers, or outsourced/replaced the real press with them, we should be thankful when some real people want to get in the thick of battle and try to relay what they see versus the truth being repeated for you on MSM. Yeah, he got killed, and that is sad. But since the entire war is a sham, I'm willing to bet you without a shadow of a doubt somebody high up in government sanctioned the hit.

Gotta keep the sheep sleep, ya know?

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Journalist choice on that..

as far as should they expect a rescue attempt... yes because anyone that joins the military especially special AFSC's, or MOS's expect to rescue non-combatants.

Ok lets take a scenario. Journalist gets caught by terrorist while attempting to report on a terrorist situation in a country like Syria which is nearly an enemy of USA itself and US has told Americans to avoid the area for safety. President orders Navy Seals to rescue him. Navy Seals pull it off but lose 3 Navy Seal lives during the rescue attempt. 5 years later same Journalist wonderers into another enemy terrorist territory to get the real story and gets captured again.

Should the President again order additional military to risk their lives to rescue this same journalist? How many military lives is one risk taking journalist worth?