I recently read a book by Robert Fisk, that states more or less, that journalists are not regarded as neutral parties by either side due to the biased and misleading article written by few. Given the overwhelming evidence pointing to two NY times journalists as instigators/ leading misleaders in the case against Iraq (Michael Gordon and Judith Miller), I find it hard to believe otherwise. Now, The question is, are journalists more prone to kidnapping because of the actions of the few ? Or is it just an advancement of an agenda ? In prior wars, some journalists used to be regarded as neutral, and could often give an alternate perspective on the war. Nowadays, that number seems to have lessened.
All you have to do is pay attention to the language they use to see if they are being emotive or logical in their presentation. After that you have to watch and see if they explain both sides of the story with the same consideration. I think journalists are definitely more into making the news than reporting it.
But is that whats causing them to be kidnapped ?. I don't think journalists have been kidnapped/killed so many times before.
HA ! They all put their own bias into every story.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The great war for civilisation, The conquest of the Middle East. as well as Thomas E Rick's Fiasco. Cosmic, yes they do, but that has been always the case, but nowadays, they are getting kidnapped because they do not seem neutral at all.
Print journalists are paragons of objectivity compared to TV journalists, The News For People Who Can't Read.
Journalists have been getting killed, kidnapped, etc, by authoritarian governments and organized criminals since journalism was invented. That would be more because of their possible objectivity, than because of their bias. And the profit potential.
Journalists are for people who can't observe and think for themselves. No wonder so many people feel obliged to defend their interpreters of realty out of personal necessity.
They are slightly more than that. Many of them are trained, or have years of experience, dealing with issues their audiences patently do not. How many people know and understand complicated budgetary issues? Or nuanced government procedure? At the end of the day, if nothing else, journalists are people who get paid to have access you don't have and don't have the time to have, because it's their job to spend all day hanging around places other people don't frequent, asking questions other people don't have the time to consider.
They get killed more nowadays because they go places journalists 50 or 100 years would never think about going. They are embedded with troops, something not even done that often in Viet Nam, they are living in warzones and reporting on groups that have no problem capturing and killing journalists. All of which is new and indicative of contemporary journalism. The killing has little to do with your — or Mr. Fisk's — conspiracy theories, I think.
countezero thats not true. Yes they wernt called "embedded journalists" in other wars, they were called "war corispondants" and i belive they are specifically listed in the geneva convention because like the redcross they never go armed into war zones. Challanger look at the balibo 5
They weren't called embedded because they weren't embedded. That is, they weren't living and traveling with troops on the front lines. World War 2 is the first war where journalists got near the fighting, but even men like Hemingway and Pyle were ferried about to do "spot" coverage. They weren't embedded. To contrast, the embeds now are in combat zones. They live there and file there, hence the higher casulty rate. You mean like Michael Kelly? Let's get some perspective, too: Embedded journalists might be "safer" than the journalists who are out on their own in places like Iraq, but they are still on the frontlines in combat, something that by its very nature doesn't seem "safe."
countezero if what your saying is true, how is it there is so much footage of the fighting in WW2? For instance the film shown in that NCIS eposode of the fighting on the shores of sulfar island? No there were lots of journilists right there in the middle of it, even to the point of living in the trenches. Yes they may have been able to chose to leave (if possable) unlike the troops but that doesnt mean they wernt at risk
That one journalist who got killed by enemy fire ? What about those who got killed by friendly fire. There are better journalists who travel ahead of the troops, without them, into the warzone. Embedded ones get the guided tour, and therefore their objectivity is compromised.
