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
They often get killed. It’s as simple as that. It’s as dangerous as being a soldier. At times, press is singled out and targeted.
They do get killed. Normally they wear things that make it obvious they’re press so people don’t target them but it’s still a very dangerous job.
About 100 journalists have been killed thus far in the current conflict in Gaza.
https://cpj.org/2024/04/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-gaza-conflict/
https://www.icij.org/inside-icij/2024/02/over-75-of-all-journalists-killed-in-2023-died-in-gaza-war-per-cpj/
They do get killed pretty often it’s a very dangerous job.
The fighting parties will tell you they don’t intentionally target them, but there is no way to confirm that.
If they do hit them they will tell you they either mistook them for a valid target or they didn’t know they were there or it was an accident.
And given the nature of war all these options are definitely possible so it’s practically impossible to prove they intentionally targeted them.
Journalists are civilians and are therefore (mostly) protected. All parties are supposed to avoid civilian casualties, but its dangerous to be a civilian in a war zone so they often gets killed anyway.
Might be worth noting that both sides usually believe they’re the ones “in the right” and the idea is that it’s in everyone’s best interest to let the press be so each side has a chance to share their side and attempt to shift public sentiment. There are Nazis who legitimately believed that they were the good guys.
But beyond that, they do often get killed regardless.
Generally speaking they’re not targeted because they’re not a threat. If a group of armed people is shooting at you will you waste time shooting the obviously unarmed guy in the bright blue vest and helmet that say “PRESS” with big letters? No.
They also generally stand back and are protected by infantry so while they’re still in danger, especially by explosives like mortars or bombs, they’re not right upfront with the people shooting each other, though that has been known to also happen.
The fact of the matter is that as you said journalists are sometimes targeted because they’re journalists. They may also accidentally be targeted and shot because a lot of people don’t wait to fully identify who or what they’re seeing when fighting. They may also die during bombings or shellings. It’s not a safe job.
[deleted]
I live in Cambodia, and I would *not* say that I know him, but Ive had a couple of cups and chatted a bit with [Al Rockoff](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Rockoff), he was played by John Malkowich in Killing Fields about the war in Cambodia. One of the very few westerners that stayed back after the country fell to Khmer Rouge. Can very much recommend that movie to get an idea of what war correspondents go through, just as much, if not more shit than many soldiers because they dont have a platoon behind them to help them out at all times. The fact that Al is still alive is very much luck.
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