I watched Civil War yesterday and even though I generally knew what their job is I was surprised that they were actually in the very middle of the fighting, tagging right behind the soldiers and taking pictures. Why does either side of the conflict just lets them be, especially the side that might be ‘in the wrong’, knowing that they would report on their atrocities?
In: Other
Both sides are *supposed* to leave the journalists be, and not target them.
But “don’t target journalists” doesn’t mean “don’t kill journalists”. It means that if you see someone is a journalist, then don’t intentionally kill them.
– If a journalist is riding in a truck with an enemy combatant – the truck is a valid target, the enemy combatants are valid targets, and the journalist will be collateral damage.
– If you did not know the journalist was a journalist (no identifying markers, you couldn’t see the identifying markers) or if they appeared to be a combatant (they were holding a weapon), then they are valid targets
– If you were aiming your rifle at an enemy combatant, but you *missed* and hit the journalist instead, then the journalist is collateral damage.
What is not okay is seeing the journalist in an empty field (no valid targets anywhere around), seeing the vest they are wearing that says “journalist”, and then intentionally shooting them.
Collateral damage isn’t a war crime. Targeting non-combatants is.
But remember – people commit war crimes. Sometimes, people will target journalists.
And journalists *do* die in combat zones. The ones that live continue to go on reporting, so you see them more. You have a [survivorship bias](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias)
Latest Answers