Tuesday, 8 December 2009

Journalists in War Zones.

It perplexes me. The story of Nigel Brennan and Canadian journalist Amanda Lindhout highlight an on going issue with journos in war zones. I guess technically Somalia isn't a war zone, but really, you're fucking suicidal if you go there. I mean really, how arrogant could you be?.

I've seen DOZENS of videos of journos being blasted to pulp by various versions of military/gunmen. Some you can't help but think 'mate, I saw that coming a mile off'. Really, hiding behind a bank with a camera pointing at a tank 500 yards away is gonna get you on the recieving end of a HE shell. How are they supposed to know it's not a rocket on your shoulder and/or that you're not gathering intel.

The other side of it the horror of your family seeing you on the news with your legs shot out from under you so you can be used as bait. Or your kids googling your name when they're old enough only to see you with your head being bent BACK and sawn off with a dull knife.

I'm glad Mr Brennan got out 'okay', but really, you're a dumb arse dude. Arrogance will only get you killed in shit holes like that. Maybe consider using local journos.

Yes, maybe we do need to hear about the plight of the locals, but really, people only stop for a minute and go: "What a shame for his family" when you're dead on the news, and you're story dies with you.


  1. At one time journo's were sacred but it has become a much riskier occupation.

    I'd say anyone going into the islamic region to chase stories is risking their necks nevermind the current zones of instability.

    Note that in only the last few days as there been an admission about Balibo by an Indo officer who was there.

  2. Yeah, don't think they should've been there either.

  3. I think that one should just draw a line in the sand and say "Civis Australis Sum" - that should cow the infidel!

  4. Hey no arguement here, but there must be a way to reduce the likelyhood of becoming a target and get the story out.

    Still the killing of jurnos hasn't seemed to reduce the pool of those willing to go into these zones to cover them.

    I see the World Association of Newspapers has 93 media employees killed so far in 2009. (37 in the Philippines WTF?)

  5. I honestly believe there is a very strong requirement for the press to go to war torn nations or other places the truth is hidden from the world (and not talking about that crappy embedding thing the US did). Honestly we would have nothing from Tienanmen square, just rumours and even more bodies. What would have happened in Yugoslavia in the mid nineties if no one was watching. Ethiopia in the 80's (before live Aid and Bob Geldof - and would he have done anything if no one was watching).Kashmir?. Would apartheid be finished in Sth Africa? would anybody have noticed the Orange revolution in the Ukraine and put international pressure on the Govt to not be so damn stupid.
    We end up with Bhopal in India. Year zero in Cambodia. Chernobyl. Rwanda.
    Some of the journos may be mouthbreathers, but others tell us what our govt is doing under the table, what that govt is doing to it's people and which corporation is exploiting 3rd world workers.

  6. I don't disagree with the need for information. I think it's REALLY important for exactly the reasons you point out. But there's two to do it from the journos POV: Smartly, or stupidly.

  7. Yes, to needing the info. No to being an arse about it. You don't put yourself somewhere where someone else is likely to get killed getting you out again.

  8. It's the cowboy adrenalin junkie mentality that gets them into this... and the above that gets them killed. Still, rather them than me. And it's a job that needs doing.

  9. How bout Jesse Ventura's gun in "Predator" with a camera mount? The reporters would be safer and it would also make for a "killer" P.O.V. shot.


Please leave your name/handle with your comment. It's important to stand next to our thoughts.