A soldier volunteers his/her life in order to protect the beliefs and ideals of their home country. Reporters do much the same. And lately their sacrifices are coming to light. In wake of Michelle Lang's tragic death and now the Wikileaks: Collateral Murder video that has just recently surfaced, showing the deaths of two Reuters journalists serving in Iraq, the public is getting a glimpse of the dangers journalists face when covering war.
Reporters Without Borders said that the number of reporters killed in the last five years has gone up 244%. According to RWB half of the reporters killed in 2007 were killed in Iraq and a total of 207 "media workers" have been killed there since March 2003, when the war began. War correspondents face the same dangers that soldiers do but while the public embraces and praises the soldiers for their efforts, journalists are not shown the same appreciation.
A total of 802 journalists have been killed since 1992, according to the "Committee to Protect Journalists." That number is staggering. For young aspiring journalists numbers like these might deter them from working in war-torn nations, but the risk is a neccessary one. War correspondence is vital. The public need to know what's going on. If there's anything the media could be blamed for it's not showing enough blood or death. A lot of provocative war photos never see the light of day because editors feel they're too graphic but that is war. War is brutal. The public needs to see this brutality, especially before they allow their government to invade or "liberate" another country.
Journalists are meant to be unbiased. Katie Elliott, a MacEwan journalism student, said it best in her "Check It" blog: "Journalists have a duty to the public to uphold an unbiased and comprehensive view on the world's happenings and share it accurately: this is news." Presenting war as it is, violent and brutal, is the most accurate way one can present it. War correspondents risk their lives to show the public these things but editors and network executives continue to censor most images. This is a true shame and one can only hope that in the future these stories and images won't be buried by legal barriers or by pacifists who wish to "protect" the public from viewing such things.
Great post Trevor. Although the video of the two Reuters journalists dying is very sad, I'm not sure if the public will fully understand the situations faced by journalists in war zones and what they sacrifice to bring the public the news. That statistic of 802 journalists deaths is also very scary.
ReplyDeleteI liked this post, the topic is a necessary one that needs to be discussed. The video from Wikileaks was shocking to say the least. It is disturbing the government and media attempt to hide the brutality of war when people need to see it. If people of a certain age aren't able to see war images if they are curious, then people will continue to ignorently support war.
ReplyDeleteHey Trevor! It's Kate, I just wanted to make a minor correction to your awesome blog post.
ReplyDeleteIn the third paragraph you wrote:
"The public need to know what's going on."
The minor adjustment I would sugest is adding an 's' to the end of "need", making the sentence:
"The public needs to know what's going on."