[Journalists who dig into
murky and dangerous corners of the world have become accustomed to being
threatened and sometimes hunted by drug lords and gangsters, but now some governments
have decided shooting the messenger is a viable option. The C.P.J. reports that
government officials and their allies are now suspected of being responsible
for more than a third of the murders of journalists, a higher proportion than
killings attributed to terrorist groups or criminal enterprises.]
By David Carr
 |
Oliver Weiken/European Pressphoto Agency
Journalists in Israel photographing the remains of a rocket that landed
by a factory in Netivot.
|
The setting at the
Waldorf-Astoria hotel on Tuesday represented the height of refinement, but Alan
Rusbridger, editor in chief of The Guardian, reminded the black-tie crowd at
the annual dinner for the Committee to Protect Journalists of something it knew
all too well: in many parts of the globe, its profession is under murderous
assault.
“Targeting journalism
has become a trend, and now the people who are harassing and killing
journalists include governments as well as the people you would expect,” said
Mr. Rusbridger, who, along with others, was honored at the gathering in New
York.
Journalists who dig into
murky and dangerous corners of the world have become accustomed to being
threatened and sometimes hunted by drug lords and gangsters, but now some governments
have decided shooting the messenger is a viable option. The C.P.J. reports that
government officials and their allies are now suspected of being responsible
for more than a third of the murders of journalists, a higher proportion than
killings attributed to terrorist groups or criminal enterprises.
On the same day as the
Waldorf event, three employees of news organizations were killed in Gaza by Israeli missiles. Rather than suggesting it
was a mistake, or denying responsibility, an Israeli Defense Forces
spokeswoman, Lt. Col. Avital Leibovich, told The Associated Press, “The targets
are people who have relevance to terror activity.”
So it has come to this:
killing members of the news media can be justified by a phrase as amorphous as
“relevance to terror activity.”
We have entered a very
different era of information management in contemporary conflicts. As my
colleague Noam Cohen reported last week,
both sides in the Gaza conflict used Twitter accounts to fire verbal shots back
and forth in an effort to shape perception in the outside world.
The good news is that,
unlike in 2008, foreign correspondents were allowed to enter Gaza and see for
themselves. The bad news is that they were entering a place where some
journalists already there were considered targets, making a dangerous situation
all the more so.
Mahmoud al-Kumi and
Hussam Salama worked as cameramen for Al-Aqsa TV, which is run by Hamas and
whose reporting frequently reflects that affiliation. They were covering events
in central Gaza when a missile struck their car, which, according to Al-Aqsa,
was clearly marked with the letters “TV.” (The car just in front of them was
carrying a translator and driver for The New York Times, so the execution hit
close to our organization.) And Mohamed Abu Aisha, director of the private
Al-Quds Educational Radio, was also in a car when it was hit by a missile.
Human Rights Watch spoke
up in protest, saying in a statement,
“Civilian broadcasting facilities are not rendered legitimate military targets
simply because they broadcast pro-Hamas or anti-Israel propaganda.” Reporters
Without Borders, another advocacy group, called the killings a “clear violation
of international standards.”
Israeli officials have
said Hamas was using journalists and their operations as “human shields,” and a
press officer for the Israeli Defense Force warned in a Twitter post that
reporters should be wary of the company they keep: “Advice to reporters in
#Gaza, just like any person in Gaza: For your own safety, stay away from #Hamas
positions and operatives.”
While it is true that
news media operations have become one more arrow in the quiver of modern
warfare, a direct attack on information gatherers of any stripe is deeply
troubling. And such attacks are hardly restricted to Israel: recall that in the
United States assault on Baghdad, television stations were early targets.
A distinction needs to
be made. The battle over ideas — over who owns the truth in a given conflict —
should be fought with notebooks and video cameras, not weapons of war.
The precision strikes
were part of a very dangerous and violent few days for journalists in the
region. Last Sunday, three airstrikes by Israel hit two buildings that might
have included legitimate targets, but also housed journalists and production
personnel from a variety of local and international news media outlets.
Television viewers could
confirm for themselves that reporting in Gaza can get pretty hairy. During a
live shot last Sunday, Anderson Cooper of CNN could be seen ducking after
a loud explosion, before popping right back up to continue his report.
The violence against
journalists in Gaza points to a larger, deadly trend. On Wednesday, the
International Press Institute issued a report saying
that 119 journalists had been killed this year, the highest total since it
started keeping track in 1997. The total included all journalists who died
while doing their jobs, not just journalists who might have been targeted for
their affiliation or reporting.
Let’s acknowledge that
many of those who died were so-called conflict journalists — reporters, photographers
and videographers who understood at least some of the associated risks.
But other factors are
worth considering. At a time when news outlets in the United States are cutting
foreign operations for monetary reasons, cheap and ubiquitous technology has
lowered the entry barrier for others who want to engage in journalism, some of
whom are already in the theater of conflict and may have partisan motives. Many
of those newer players are young and inexperienced in ways that make them
particularly vulnerable in the middle of dangerous conflicts.
Other journalists have
close affiliations with partisan forces in these conflicts.
As news media
organizations become increasingly politicized, all journalists risk ending up
as collateral casualties because they are working adjacent to outlets viewed as
purveyors of propaganda.
In Syria at
the beginning of the year, Marie Colvin, who had been reporting for The Sunday
Times of London, and Rémi Ochlik, a French photographer, died when the
makeshift media center where they were working alongside opposition journalists
was destroyed.
The nature of war has
changed in a way that makes covering it more dangerous. Improvised explosive
devices, or I.E.D.’s, and suicide bombers make no distinction in whom they kill
and maim, and the street protests that were the flash point for the Arab Spring
were a difficult and dangerous reporting challenge because the protesters and
state forces trying to contain them could both be a threat.
The deadliest country
for journalists this year, in terms of the number who died, was Syria,
according to the International Press Institute. Journalists stay safe, in part,
by knowing where to position themselves, but that conflict was full of
asymmetries. In a place where the front lines are constantly shifting, the
margin is razor thin between reporting on the death toll and becoming part of
it.
Unesco has recognized
that more is at stake than dangerous working conditions. It has convened a
series of meetings, one of which took place in
Vienna last week, investigating ways to increase journalists’
safety and maintain the free flow of information out of combat zones.
The more important
principle at work is whether governments in the Middle East and elsewhere will
succeed in shaping or silencing different points of view by training missiles
and bullets on journalists. If they do, the battle for the truth will disappear
into the fog of war.
E-mail:
carr@nytimes.com;
twitter.com/carr2n
