Should journalists be allowed anywhere near the theatre?

Question

If NO -

i) Why not?
ii) Who is ultimately responsible - Military for giving authorisation, or media bosses for sending journos in to conflict zones, or the journo him/herself for wanting to try and get the story?
iii) What access should journalists have in a theatre of war/conflict?

If Yes -
i) Why?
ii) Who's ultimately responsible if something goes wrong - Military for authorising journos into the theatre zone, or media bosses for wanting scoops on thier rivals, or the journo him/herself for wanting to find a story?

Answer 1

It depends on what you mean by theater.

1. Should journalists be allowed on the battlelines talking about what is occurring and taping it live? NO!

They are exposing out troops to more danger that way. All Saddam and his military aides had to do was watch CNN or any station like it to see where we were and what we were doing.

2. It should the ultimately the media and the journalists who responisible for the themselves. By being with the troops, they distracting the troops from their primary responsibilities. The troops would be worried about the journalists' safety and not defeating the enemy.

3. Like other wars, the journalists should be far in the backline. That way the military can tell them what is happening without giving out too much information.

In the past, some journalists visited the frontline during the war. Ernie Pyle (WWII), for instance. But he and journalists like him main priority was talking to the troops and writing about them and the war in general. Not trying to see what our military was up to and reporting it to the world.

Answer 2

Yes, because it should give an unfiltered view of what the situation is in the area of conflict. As to who is ultimately responsible (I assume you mean for the safety of the journalist) would be the journalist themselves. They may be given an assignment, but they should have the option to say no if they question their safety. Those who go, and are injured, and come back making themselves the story, overshadowing the turmoil of the conflict is what I find disturbing.

I feel, you knew the danger, you made the choice to go, you got hurt (or killed), that's your choice, and these are the consequences of your choice. Don't lay the blame on "They didn't give us protection ... etc" It's not their duty.

One other thing I want to vent on is the bias of the reporter in the story. Comparing reconstruction efforts to the level we have here in the US is wrong. Decrying the costs is oversimplification. We rebuild something, it gets damaged again and has to be replaced, costs mount. It would be nice to have a fail safe security method to protect these efforts, but its not possible. Plus the labor of people who charge more for working in a dangerous spot adds to the cost.

Answer 3

NO!

They are a liability to troops... untrained, unarmed... all they are doing is getting in the way and possibly putting the troops in more danger (for some reason, it's bigger headlines for the insurgents if they can manage to kidnap a journalist...)

Think it is combination of both on fault... military should never agree to have them out there and media should know better than to put themselves in that situation. If they really want to do it, they should be off on their own with no military affiliation... get private security details to escort them.

I have no problem with them being here, just don't make them our responsibility (they may say that they aren't, that they're responsible for themselves, but ultimately, their safety relies on the troops.

To me, a dead soldier/airman/sailor/Marine is not worth getting one story that isn't even going to be told properly anyway.

Answer 4

No, Journalist do not belong in war zones, and it has nothing to do with their safety. Things happen in War that the majority of people do not need to see, or know. as a great general once said:

"War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over."
-William T. Sherman

Answer 5

No. Look how they portray soldiers and marines as mindless killers who are hell bent on killing rather than americans who are trying to stay alive when death is all around. Journalists want drama and are willing to spin the truth to achieve that. Journalists should focus on what good is done like building schools and hospitals rather than a few soldiers (out of thousands) who commit a crime.

Answer 6

I think journalists are Anti military. There also report like they think the enemy isn't listening, giving away locations and troop movement. They also report only the bad stuff and not about anything we are doing to improve life for those people. The good stuff doesn't sell.

Answer 7

Journalists are allowed to take footages and accounts of the war in order to show the real picture of what is happening. Although there are many risks, the journalists stake their lives for what is the truth.

Answer 8

They are allowed.

In fact the best and most accurate reporting about the war comes from the reporters who 'embed' with the troops. If we had more embeds then there would not be as muck opposition to the war because then the American people would be getting a more accurate picture of the situation.

Answer 9

yes they should be in the front lines,they are called war corrospondents,i think thechoice lies with the journalist

Answer 10

Yes put more in kill the lot