The Best of GRReporter
flag_bg flag_gr flag_gb

Journalists are neither moving targets, nor side losses of wars

27 April 2011 / 23:04:21  GRReporter
5603 reads

The story of Giuliana Sgrena  is an example of a journalist in a "cross" fire. The correspondent of the Italian newspaper Manifesto was kidnapped by one such organisation. She remained in captivity for a month and did not know whether she would not lose her live at any time. She was freed by the Italian military intelligence and the car in which she traveled reached a checkpoint of the U.S. Army on the road to Baghdad and the soldiers fired at it. The secret agent, who saved her from captivity, saved her life a second time, covering her with his body. So, she was only wounded, but he died. This story is indicative of the fact that when a journalist is moving alone he or she comes under fire from both sides.

Many of the journalists opt to be embedded to any of the participants in the military operations that protect them. But how much impartial is the information of a journalist who works in this way?

This is a serious discussion. When someone is embedded a contract is signed which describes exactly what could be and could not be transmitted. The things not allowed to be transmitted include the area of ​​movement of the military detachment, which is logical. The journalist is not allowed to write anything about the weapons available to the detachment, which could also be defined as logical. But the contract also includes a number of other bans, which seriously hamper the journalistic work. It forbids the journalist to broadcast what really happens during a battle or in a march to the desert if the events are not in favour of the force that protects the journalist. It is forbidden, for example, to provide information that the soldiers were seized with panic attack or one of them was wounded or killed. The prohibition list is quite long.

However, to be embedded is a small part of the whole puzzle of war. Because there is no other way to track military operations, this is a valuable way to be present on the battlefield. Moreover, the journalist has witnessed what has happened when the battle or the war ends. Then, he or she could tell about it or write about it. There is one such example in the film. This is the story of Kevin Sites who was embedded to the U.S. Army. One day the soldiers of the squad entered a mosque where they found wounded mudzhahedini without weapons, because another squad had taken them a little earlier. However, a soldier started shooting at them and executed them one by one. Kevin Sites filmed the shooting with his camera. When he transmitted the information for the first time he censored himself. But then he regretted it and later showed the events as they happened. So, it matters to be embedded. On the other hand, if you take information only from embedded journalists, then you have the wrong picture of the war. 

  
To what extent is the risk to which journalists are subjected when they go to such places justified?  

There is no logical explanation of journalism. It is a passion, and no passion is justified. And what is more important, no passion could justify the loss of life. However, when you are there and present what is really happening you feel a great desire to present it as better as possible. In this sense, I respect very much the people who follow their passions and are romantic, rather than doing everything for money. Ultimately, the world is more beautiful and better because of the romantics, not the cynics.

The film contains interviews with the families of killed journalists. How did you convince them to tell their stories?

I met many relatives of those who perished and I would divide them into three groups. Some were those who wanted to completely "close the book". They could not live through again the events associated with the loss of their close that overturned their whole life.  

The second group includes very distant people because they did not want to experience again what have caused them so much pain. On the other hand, they wanted to know who is the man they would talk to, because not a few are those who want to benefit from these tragedies. I had to travel a lot to convince the people to know me, to talk with them without a camera, to share our views on many topics, not just the specific one, to make them understand that I would present their story in a dignified manner and with respect to the memory of the fallen. Later, when they saw the outcome, the relatives were satisfied that they had decided to talk.

There is a third group of relatives who continue to fight for justice and do not give up in any way. This is the case with the operator Jose Couso, who died on April 8, 2003 during the shelling of the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad. His mother and two brothers are fighting, although they often make one step forward and then two steps back. The struggle for justice is very difficult, because one is faced with a whole mechanism and the small print letters in international conventions and treaties which are provided to protect those who take lives, not to protect the right to life.

Tags: MediaDocumentaryMilitary operationsKilled journalists
SUPPORT US!
GRReporter’s content is brought to you for free 7 days a week by a team of highly professional journalists, translators, photographers, operators, software developers, designers. If you like and follow our work, consider whether you could support us financially with an amount at your choice.
Subscription
You can support us only once as well.
blog comments powered by Disqus