I dont understand whats the vest supposed to do
Arent they kinda useless in the event noones watching the vest or reading it?
Also are there consequences if they got shot or is it just a stupid vest i dont really understand !
In: 690
The real reason has been mentioned, but there is also an element of war theatre going on in some cases.
I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist or something and they do wear the vests as necessary personal protective equipment while doing their work, but the mid-shot standing in a public place wearing the blue vest (and possibly a helmet) while doing a segment on the nightly news is at least partly to signal “this is serious and we are actually here, covering it.” They could just call in from a (relatively) safe compound or hotel not requiring any PPE, but they choose to broadcast from outside and to wear the vest, because it delivers a message to viewers at home.
Well to begin with, blue or not, functionally it’s still a flak jacket and you wear it for the same reason the soldiers do, its body armor and increases your survivability significantly. But for press, running around with a regular flak jacket in a warzone would be incredibly stupid, if nobody knows who you are, then everyone would assume you are the enemy and instantly open fire. So the jacket is blue and says press in big white letters. As a bonus, most combatants don’t really want to shoot at press, positive PR is very important in a war, you do want to world to be on your side.
It’s a war crime to attack journalists, aid workers, civilians and medics. One of the reasons soldiers wear uniforms is so they know who they’re allowed to kill. If soldiers break the rules they can be punished later, it’s basically like committing any other murder but it’s prosecuted by different police
If they’re new, it’s likely people don’t recognize them as reporters on sight.
Regimes want to keep them safe, or at least out of inconvenient places. Abusing reporters is really bad press.
If it’s the vest i’m thinking of, there’s two reasons:
First, journalists are protected as non combatants under the geneva convention. The vest is usually bright blue and clearly identifies that person as a member of the press. So yes, shooting them *intentionally* is a war crime. The flip side to this is that a soldier can’t wear that vest, that would also be a war crime.
Second, that vest is usually kevlar and offers some limited protection against bullets & shrapnel on the off chance they get caught in the crossfire.
Typically the press vest is worn by reporters who are operating in or near active combat zones, or are embedded with military forces.
And beyond aid agencies getting kicked out, it sewed distrust in the health systems. So countries where we had the potential to eradicate polio from now don’t trust health workers who try to vaccinate. Which can and will lead to the spread of disease even beyond their borders. It becomes a global health security threat.
The vest doesn’t grant immunity from war zones or conflict. It looks really bad on the world stage to attack or apprehend journalist. Also, the belligerents wouldn’t want to involve or upset the country the journalist is a citizen of.
It’s still very dangerous either way because there are factions out there that don’t want to be reported on or just don’t care about diplomatic fallout.
Foreign Press and Diplomats are usually treated very carefully in other countries less they want to start an international incident real effin quick.
Unless you’re invited to the Saudi Arabian consulate – you’re probably OK.
In combat areas, it’s body armor, so it’s supposed to protect them from a bullet or shrapnel, at least a little.
It’s marked “Reporter” or “Press” to identify who and what they are in the hopes that they will not be confused for someone actually fighting in the conflict. A lot of fighting these days involves combatants without a proper uniform to help make them identifiable, or they wear uniforms that are very similar. So wearing a big clear Identification here might help you avoid getting killed.
War reporting is really risky. Battle is confusing and from certain angles it’s really easy to confuse a camera for a weapon or other battlefield tool, so a reporter has to do whatever they can to try and stay safe.
There’s no real consequences for shooting a reporter beyond any that you might get for shooting a civilian. And again, it’s easy to confuse a reporter for an enemy combatant, so even a real law and order faction might not come down on someone for shooting a reporter thinking they are a combatant.
Outside of armed conflict, sometimes it’s required. Many nations do not have any special legal protections for the media, and may legally require media identify themselves as such when doing business. Even in the US there’s certain situations where media are better off identifying themselves as such (the reason a “press pass” exists) so they either won’t get hassled by security, and will be handled as media and not just random people.
In some cases it may be helpful or more dangerous. Some armies and factions want good public option, so they’ll try and engage the media to cover their perspective, set up a chance to embed or talk to leadership, so on.
In other cases it’s increased risk, Some armies and factions see the media as spies and propagandists. So IDing youself might get you grabbed off the street and killed.
Journalism is a complex profession, and it requires a lot of dedication. It doesn’t pay well, it’s difficult, and these days there’s a good chance some hack or AI will just rip you off. So no sense making things worse by getting yourself shot.
Latest Answers