Safety for Journalists

I dodged some mounted police with clubs in the 70's, stood off some Maoists who wanted my camera, and carried a helmet during riots, and I was not getting the big bucks. Also had a gas mask in the trunk of the car.

Am pretty sure I would be using Canon tele's today--

I did everything I could to be identifiable as a journalist.

Regards, John
 
Last edited:
Stephen wrote: ...moderators in order to keep things civil and...
Click to expand...

If this goes anywhere political, could we please be civil and just lock the thread and not simply delete it? Thanks, mods!


Now, for the contributing answer :D

I was wondering before how war photographers and journalists make themselves seen nowadays. In the 1980, my uncle wore western European clothing while working Central America and vehicles and cases were marked with gaffer tape 'P' for Prensa, meaning Press. But, in the Vietnam war, VC and NVA troops shot anybody wearing civilian clothes for being CIA spies.

Complicating matter: modern adversaries consider the press to be in league with western governments and therefor a journalist or photographer is a target or a hostage candidate.

If any good is going to come from the heartbreaking video on the Reuters crew, it might be that it would strengthen the adversaries belief that the press is showing all sides of a conflict, no matter who does what.

What ever happened to the photographers in the military service, BTW?

From reading the book Lost over Laos I know that the US Marines had their own Eye Corps with photographers that shot both cameras and weapons when needed.
 
Karl Marx's observation of exploitation and class struggle and the photos of Robert Capa and Zoriah Miller are steering me in the path of becoming a war photographer.

It's not about money, never has been, it is about getting telling a story in many or just a single frame, about writing history in some way, about helping get the message out about injustice, being a voice. There is something about all that which draws me in.

I have an idea of what it is like out there, but ideas are far from reality.
 
CLE-RF said:
But, in the Vietnam war, VC and NVA troops shot anybody wearing civilian clothes for being CIA spies.
Click to expand...

... or not - there were only 63 journalists killed in Vietnam on both sides, and presumably some of them were killed by friendly fire, which would leave pretty few journalists to kill as a CIA spy.
 
sevo said:
... or not - there were only 63 journalists killed in Vietnam on both sides, and presumably some of them were killed by friendly fire, which would leave pretty few journalists to kill as a CIA spy.
Click to expand...

Sevo,

I got this from the book Lost over Laos, on the deaths of Larry Burrows, Henri Huet, Kent Potter and Keisoburo Shimamoto. Written by Richard Pyle and Horst Faas. Brilliant book, got it recommended here and I'm passing on the favour.

There's a number of anecdotes in the book on journalists and press staff members wearing civilian clothes being killed by VC and NVA for the above mentioned reason.

Again, recommended book, good piece of journalism and a true insight into the lives of those famous photographers.

How about those suggestions of keeping photographers safe in battle and riots?
 
there really is no 100% safe. most folks working in "dicey" scenarios put a lot of work into negating as much of the "danger" as possible when heading out. this process in itself can be VERY exhausting. moving all the time, staying indoors, hotels, cars etc. until the very moment it's time to step out. it's all part of getting the job done really but again, there is no 100% safe.

the safety scenario has changed dramatically as very few folks are out on assignment for one large organization with the budget to pay bribes/ransom or come fetch you should you get "lost". as a result i fear we will see the numbers climb before there is any leveling out or progress. folks are often on their own with only the watch command of their respected embassy looking out for them. make for easy picking should someone disagree with what the photojournalist/journalist has to say. for these very reasons i (and a lot of others) tend to keep the web presence fairly neutral.
 
"What ever happened to the photographers in the military service, BTW?"

the combat camera folks are nice enough but their role really is esprit de corps within the ranks.
 
Quote from the article;

"The journalist's role is vital for a democracy and it must be acknowledged."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are the two most recent conflicts in which the US are involved have something to do with the US trying to install a democratic society to which the resistance is opposed?

I just don't get how anyone can expect BOTH sides of a conflict to hold a high value on journalists. Suicide bomber not going to pull the trigger until all the journalist have been cleared from the area?

I have a great respect for war photographers and surely I do not have the you know whats to do it. ...but I don't see the other side caring for the safety of journalists.

John
 
well i am not entirely sure "democracy" is the core objective in Iraq or Afghanistan however you are correct in pointing out that rarely will both sides have warm felling towards the journalist.
 
"I have an idea of what it is like out there, but ideas are far from reality."

tattoo that on the arm before you start.
 
I knew the photographer/reporter from Cleveland who went to Viet Nam, Mike Roberts, he wore a military uniform, no firearm. He looked like any other soldier, though he had a couple of Nikons around his neck.

The My Lai massacre story broke here, well after the fact, from military photographers who kept their "own" film separate from what they turned in, and cashed in, basically for a Corvette, after their discharge.

See the article "The Selling of the My Lai Massacre", which cost the reporter his job because of his unkind words about the paper. Believe that was published in Evergreen.

That was Joe Esterhas, who made millions writing in Hollywood, and Rolling Stone.

Hard to see the consequences and roles involved at times.


Journalism has come a long way as everything is really "instant", but there was a certain feeling of mission, of getting it right, at least among the folks I got to know in my years involved in and around papers. Risks were somehow just taken and accepted.

I am just not sure how I would be able to identify myself to a helicopter crew today.


Regards, John
 
CLE-RF said:
If this goes anywhere political, could we please be civil and just lock the thread and not simply delete it? Thanks, mods!


Now, for the contributing answer :D

I was wondering before how war photographers and journalists make themselves seen nowadays. In the 1980, my uncle wore western European clothing while working Central America and vehicles and cases were marked with gaffer tape 'P' for Prensa, meaning Press. But, in the Vietnam war, VC and NVA troops shot anybody wearing civilian clothes for being CIA spies.

Complicating matter: modern adversaries consider the press to be in league with western governments and therefor a journalist or photographer is a target or a hostage candidate.

If any good is going to come from the heartbreaking video on the Reuters crew, it might be that it would strengthen the adversaries belief that the press is showing all sides of a conflict, no matter who does what.

What ever happened to the photographers in the military service, BTW?

From reading the book Lost over Laos I know that the US Marines had their own Eye Corps with photographers that shot both cameras and weapons when needed.
Click to expand...

My dad was a solider and war photographer in WW2..He took images in airplanes of enemy complexes. And some ground images too. But it was for Intel, not for publishing. I believe these Drones capture images for Intel now.
 
Ash said:
As John Simpson wrote: "Since the first world war, every war in which the Americans have fought has been marked by unnecessary civilian deaths … Now, it seems, there may be a new distinguishing feature of American wars: the killing of journalists."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/apr/10/us-friendly-fire-justice-iraq
Click to expand...

Could that be because Americans are one of the few countries that hold themselves to a higher moral standing to even bother to count civilian deaths?

...if I a combatant that does not care about civilian deaths, why bother counting them?

John
 
Emra, I agree that keeping safe is a big part of the job and can be a nerving one.

My uncle and three other journalists were killed in El Salvador in 1982. Previously to their deaths (shot in a military ambush) they were courteously interrogated by the military and that brought them headlines in both censored and free papers. They gained a sense of safety from that and probably had been right if the military had been a steady factor, acting out as one. Turns out, some officers from a nearby military base took offence in the article and decided to 'solve' the issue.

Only takes a single nut, like the Myanmar soldier that shot Kenji Nagai.
 
Question: are smaller cameras better to use in battle or riots because its easier to look like a civilian?

Come to mind: RFF member Tightsqueeze that shot several M8s during his tours in Iraq, and Alex Majoli. Downside: getting into the action to get the shot.
Any thoughts on this?
 
i think the answer to that requires a bit of information. the most important is how the country/state you are in feel about your activities.

a riot on the streets of Washington D.C.? personally i would not mind looking as "press" as possible.

a riot/street battle in Port Hardcourt (Niger Delta)? small camera and look as "passing NGO worker" as possible.

i think each scenario is different and you need to measure them as such. an embed with U.S. forces in Iraq (or wherever) has different requirements than say photographing Kurds operating on the border with Turkey etc.

these are of course my own thoughts on the matter and i wouldn't suggest anyone use them as operating procedure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom