This diary was inspired by quaoar's excellent story on the security of journalists in Iraq. Go read it if you haven't done so already.
According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 99 journalists have been killed in Iraq since March 2003. 37 additional media support personnel (interpreters, drivers, etc.) have also been killed. This is larger than the number of journalists killed in any previous war, and in fact, exceeds the number of journalists killed in Korea and Vietnam combined.
Why the dramatic increase in violence against journalists?
In a 31 May 2006 interview with Radio Free Europe, Rodney Pinder, director of the IPI International News-Safety Institute said (emphasis mine):
RFE: Why is Iraq so particularly dangerous for the media and journalists?
Pinder: Violence is coming from all sides, and I think the insurgents who are killing journalists -- and they are responsible for most of the deaths -- they just don't have any sympathy with journalists [...]
RFE: There have always been journalists killed in wars and other conflicts. What makes this conflict different?
Pinder: I've covered many conflicts and wars myself in a long career in international reporting. What makes this different is that journalists are being targeted. In most previous wars journalists were generally respected -- or, if you like, were more or less used by one side or another but were respected for the reporting job they could do.
Patrick Cockburn, author of The Occupation: War, Resistance and Daily Life in Iraq, writes,
"Iraq is worse than previous wars. The Sunni insurgents kill or kidnap cameramen just as they do any foreigner. They regard an Iraqi cameraman as a possible spy."
Even Fox News Channel vice-president John Stack concedes, "[A]t least in certain cycles, journalists themselves were the targets, and that hadn't been the case in previous conflicts."
So, we have three sources in agreement that war journalists used to merit some respect from combattants, but no longer. In fact, journalists may be regarded as "spies" -- actively helping the American insurgents. What are some possible reasons for this change in attitude between previous wars and this one?
The Bush administration's practice of "embedding" journalists helps to ensure that journalists see only what the military permits them to see -- allowing them to be used as propagandists.
David Miller of the Stirling Media Research Institute observes,
Each embedded reporter has to sign a contract with the military and is governed by a fifty point plan issued by the Pentagon detailing what they can and cannot report. The list of what they can report is significantly shorter than the list of what they cannot.
Venik adds,
The flow of information was still under the complete control of the military: video footage and commentaries were reviewed and edited before broadcast in accordance with whatever the military demanded. The concept of embedded journalists killed two birds with one stone: the news networks raised their ratings by showing "live" frontline footage and the military acquired an effective propaganda tool.
Previously this role was performed by the military reporters and it was called wartime propaganda. Now the same job is being carried out by civilian journalists representing world’s leading news networks and it is being regarded as open and unbiased coverage.
The fairness and objectivity of embedded war journalists was compromised by the conditions they were forced to agree to. Lt. Col. Rick Long, then-head of of media relations for the U.S. Marine Corps is remarkably forthcoming about this point:
Frankly, our job is to win the war. Part of that is information warfare. So we are going to attempt to dominate the information environment.