18
|
the
channel
Covering
how safe
More than in any major conflict to date, the pictures and reports
coming back from Iraq were extraordinarily close to the action, with
reporters working in frontline and exposed positions more than ever
before. The result of this however, was a conflict within a conflict.
Journalists wanted to exercise the right of press freedom to go wherever
they wanted, but the military wanted to try to ensure journalists’ safety,
by “embedding” them as securely as possible in military units.
Considering the scale of the broadcasting operation, and the fluidity of
the military action, journalist casualties were not high. Nevertheless,
the safety of journalists was a major talking point.
Towards the end of the conflict, one of the
more dramatic “friendly fire” incidents
occurred, when American military vehicles
fired at the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, where
many journalists were, they thought, safely
based, and at the offices of Al-Jazeera. Two
journalists were killed, and several wounded.
The press freedom organisation Reporters
sans Frontieres reacted angrily.
“Reporters Without Borders called today on
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to
provide evidence that the offices of the pan-
Arab TV station Al-Jazeera and the Palestine
Hotel in Baghdad were not deliberately fired
at by US forces earlier in the day in attacks
that killed three journalists.
“We are appalled at what happened because it
was known that both places contained
journalists,” said the organisation’s secretary-
generalRobertMenard. “Filmshot by theFrench
TV station France 3 and descriptions by
journalists show the neighbourhood was very
quiet at that hour and that the US tank crew took
their time, waiting for a couple of minutes and
adjusting its gun before opening fire.
“This evidence does not match the US version
of an attack in self-defence and we can only
conclude that the US army deliberately and
without warning targeted journalists. US
forces must prove that the incident was not a
deliberate attack to dissuade or prevent
journalists from continuing to report on what
is happening in Baghdad,” he said.
“We are concerned at the US army’s
increasingly hostile attitude towards
journalists, especially those non-embedded
in its military units. Army officials have also
remained deplorably silent and refused to give
any details about what happened when a
British ITN TV crew was fired on near Basra
on 22 March, killing one journalist and
leaving two others missing.
“Very many non-embedded journalists have
complained about being refused entry to Iraq
from Kuwait, threatened with withdrawal of
accreditation and being held and interrogated
for several hours. One group of non-
embedded journalists was held in secret for
two days and roughed up by US military
police,” Menard said.
Meanwhile, the Brussels-based International
Federation of Journalists, representing more
than 500,000 journalists in over 100 countries,
was protesting that the military, for the sake
of safety, were imposing too tight a control
over journalists.
The International Federation of Journalists
joined broadcasters in protesting over
“unacceptable discrimination” and restrictions
being imposed on journalists covering the war
in Iraq when they are not travelling with army
units of the United States or Britain.
Reports from journalists in southern Iraq said
that media staff who were not part of the so-
called “embedded” group of reporters
travelling under the official protection of the
military were being forcibly removed. “This
is unacceptable discrimination against
independent journalism at a time when the
pace of war is quickening and reporters are
striving to bring millions of people coverage
from the front lines,” said Aidan White,
General Secretary of the IFJ.
The IFJ said that military control of the media
was unacceptable. The Federation supported
the protests of individual broadcasters and the
European Broadcasting Union, which today
condemned the actions of the US military,
saying it was apparently directed against so-
called “unilateral” journalists working around
the battlefronts who were not assigned to
specific army units. The IFJ was particularly
concerned at reports that the military forces
were singling out groups of journalists who
were from countries that were not part of the
coalition in support of the war.
The IFJ estimated that around 3,000
journalists were working in the region, with
only about 600 officially travelling with the
armed forces. The Federation says that
journalists would not tolerate military
attempts to stop them from working and that
could lead some of them to take more risks.
“We already have a number of journalists who
are casualties,” said White, “and there may
be more dangers ahead if journalists have to
find ways of circumventing attempts to stop
them from working.” The IFJ says four
journalists have died, a dozen injured and
some are still missing.
Reporters sans Frontieres became so
concerned that it initiated an insurance policy,
particularly for freelances.
“Because freelance journalists are often the
ones with the least resources as well as being
the most at-risk in the field, ReportersWithout
Borders (Reporters Sans Frontières) is
offering freelancers an affordable insurance
policy, and is appealing to media
professionals to join the promotional
campaign, created by the Arriba agency.
The toll
More than 500 journalists have been killed
within the last decade-nearly half of them in
war zones or dangerous areas. Eight
journalists were killed in Afghanistan in
November 2001. While honouring them for
their courage, we also need to take steps to
help limit the risks encountered by such
journalists. Over the last several months,
Reporters Without Borders has been taking a
number of initiatives to improve the security
of journalists who go on dangerous
assignments. In order to limit the risks
incurred by reporters, the organization is
asking the media, in particular, to better
ensure the safety of their employees and
contributors by committing to the principles
set out in the Charter for the Safety of
Journalists Working in War Zones or
Dangerous Areas.
What about freelance journalists?
Reporters without Borders, a press freedom
