WordPress.com



Joel CoboProfessor HamiltonENG 1214/18/15Some people believe that journalism is a safe job and that anyone can do it. Well that’s not the case. There are severe consequences for not being safe while reporting especially in war zones. In the past months reporters have been killed and threatened to leave the country they are reporting in. Many know ISIS as the leader in these sort of attacks as of recent memory, When these problems arise the question becomes should journalists be allowed to carry guns into the warzones or not? Also if they should even be in those war zones to begin with. There are many oppositions, but journalists shouldn’t carry guns either way, because if they do then they will lose their credibility as a reporter.There have been many recent attacks on journalists as of late. There have been many attacks especially made by the terrorist group that’s “on a roll” with its beheadings called ISIS. This group have been killing off journalists these past few weeks and it’s to no surprise too. What better way to gain attention, but by killing a civilian? There have also been the recent attacks on reporters in Syria with a whopping 79 confirmed kills as totaled by the Committee to Protect Journalists. It seems that journalists do need to carry firearms if they don’t want to add to the beheadings and the number at Syria.Source: Chalabi, Mona. "A Look at Journalists Killed, by Country." DataLab. Committee to Protect Journalists, 04 Apr. 2014. Web. 13 May 2015.As one can see since 1992 to present day there has been an increase in journalism related deaths. Which proves that journalism now a days has been a riskier and riskier jobs than some may think. A reporter named Geraldo Rivera in an article by David Bauder actually brought a loaded gun into the war zone for his own personal safety. He claims it was self-defense, because there were bullets and mortars all around him in Afghanistan. Also Steve Bell a telecommunications professor who was caught during the Vietnam War in 1970, was held up by Vietcongs, because they thought he was a CIA agent. His Vietnamese friends convinced the cons that he wasn’t an agent and it was thanks to the gun, because without it they wouldn’t have believed he was just a protective journalist. If journalists do carry guns they are then a part of the story themselves. This cannot happen, because once a reporter becomes a part of the story they are reporting on then they lose the credibility of being a reporter. There is also the possibility of bias reporting and that is definitely a taboo in the journalism world. There is also the risk of ruining the credibility of all the other reporters on the battlefield, because if one reporter carries a gun then the enemy might assume that all the reporters are carrying guns which makes them viable targets. This is a tricky concept, because if they don’t carry the guns they are easy targets, but they keep their integrity. If a journalist does carry a gun they are more protected, but they run the risk of their story being scrapped due to the fact that they are involved in the story themselves. Professor Miguel Perez of Lehman College opposes the idea of journalists carrying guns. Perez being a journalism teacher and a renowned reporter, because one might remember the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center him being the first reporter on the case as the man over the radio call reporting what's happening. He also has experience with dealing with the “bad guys” of his time. In a recent interview with Professor Perez a series of questions were asked about his opinion on the matter and here is what he had to say. How do you feel about correspondents out into war zones? He answered with, “I believe that they should be there and without them some wars could have kept going on. We’d still be in the Vietnam War if there wasn’t any correspondents over there! The reason some wars ended or the way that they ended was, because the fact that they were covered by the media. People love to actually see what’s happening instead of being told and that’s thanks to the journalists in field.” There was also the question of, do you think that journalists should carry a weapon in those war zones? Perez answered as, “No, because once one carries a gun and shoots back then that person is no longer eligible to write the story. Of course if it’s to save a life then do it by all means don’t just watch and report it, but other than that journalists should not carry guns in war zones. I remember when I had to do a hostage investigation with three Hispanic gunmen and at that time there were no spanish speaking cops so I had to talk to the men, but before I did that I had to call my boss for him to send another reporter cover the event, because now I’m a part of it.” The final question was that on the current issues of ISIS and their attacks on journalists. The question was. Do you have a comment about the recent deaths in Syria and all the ISIS attacks on journalists? His response was intriguing. “This deal with ISIS and the fighting over there is a tragedy. There is no honor anymore and with this sort of fighting and how advanced war is there is almost no safety for anyone really. These men are doing anything to piss people off and that’s killing civilians and reporters.There is an opposition to this problem though. In an article written by Julia Angwin called “Should Journalists Guns”, she speaks about the advantages of carrying guns in war zones for the safety of the journalist due to modern times, because now in war time journalists are being targeted and is even more unsafe than before. She states, “As a result, reporters in Iraq are arming themselves more than in many recent conflicts. Most have armed guards at their homes and offices. And some journalists, including TV crews with expensive equipment, retain armed guards when they travel for reporting assignments. ” So the journalists are being armed in a way, but not to the extent of them having guns themselves. She speaks about how if a reporter is armed or wearing armor than it might make a barrier between the interviewer and the reporter. It also states that it seems the reporter is saying that their life is more important that the person they are interviewing. So there is a contrast of opinions. There is a side that believes that these journalists should be armed, but not to the extent of themselves being armed. With this the journalists are safer, but then they have a hard time getting the story now. Journalists run a risk of carrying a gun. In an article in by Johannes Paulsen in the article titled, “Should Journalists Be Armed” she explains in hindsight journalists shouldn’t carry guns. She takes a quote from the CTPJ (The Committee to Protect Journalists) that carrying a gun “can undermine your status as an observer and, by extension, the status of all other journalists in the conflict area”. If a journalist carries a gun and fires back to protect themselves while enemy fire they are then part of the story which is a huge taboo in the journalism world. If one becomes part of the story then they cannot under any means report, because a bias viewpoint might be presented. Also if even one journalist carries a firearm and a enemy combatant sees this then it can spell trouble for the rest of the journalists which creates a bigger problem for the rest of the people on the field. This creates an issue with separating the civilian from the soldier and one cannot have that while in the war zones especially for the squad that carries the reporter. This reverts back to what Julia states which is in contrast with Perez in which if the journalist does carry a gun then it’s more to a problem to the squad, because as Julia states it’s the squad’s job to protect the journalist in the end.Recently there has been a number of murders of journalists across the globe and the one leading the charge right now is terrorist group ISIS which are infamous for their beheadings as of late. In an article by Faith Karimi titled, “ Japan waits, Japan Mourns as ISIS apparently beheads Journalist” on the CNN website Japan mourns the death of a journalist targeted by ISIS, The terrorist group send evidence of the beheading of the journalist to the public. If he was then this situation could have been avoided, but then he wouldn’t be able to report on the group or the war. Then again he died, because he had no protection in the first place. Where does one stand on this issue then? Honestly it could go either way, but if he had a gun would he die anyways, because of his involvement and not being a civilian anymore? This may seem like a random death count, but as Professor Perez states in his interview he says that these deaths aren’t happening, because journalists are prime targets, but it’s because these people are going out to the field by themselves at times to try to get that big scoop that they need for their station. The reporters are kind of at fault. Journalists are more important in war, because without them nothing gets known. If there were no journalists then no one would know about ISIS. Journalists don’t have the means to defend themselves or the know how of weapon training, but they go in anyways, because they respect their duty to the world and uncovering what’s really happening. Often time’s soldiers have to protect a journalist now and again as their mission so that the war can be covered in the first place. The things that are going on are terrible, and journalists are always in danger, well everyone is in danger out there in the field, because there aren’t any front lines like back in my day. There are every sides, because the enemy is everywhere now and I think that it’s a dangerous path to follow, but someone has to do it.These two oppositions of journalists carrying guns is a huge deal now a days, but in the end there is one solution. That journalists shouldn’t really carry guns. If they did it would spell trouble as stated already. So what is there to do? Should we should just stop sending reporters out into the fields? In the end the question remains. If a journalist does carry a gun then they are no longer a bystander, but if they don’t they run the risk of death. All there is to do is trust the army men and women to protect these heroes of wars, because without them there wouldn’t be an ISIS. We wouldn’t know what ISIS is in the first place or the real terrors of war and the fighting in Syria and the Ukraine. We can’t do that, because if we did no one would know what would be going on over at the war zones and America would be in the dark. Do we strap them with weapons and hope for the best? They can’t do that, because if we did they would lose their credibility and become even a bigger target than they already are. If we strip the reporters of all armor and weapons than they are more susceptible to death, but they get to keep on reporting and there won’t be any form of bias reporting concerning their time in the war zone. Some people believe that journalism is a safe job and that anyone can do it. Well that’s not the case. People tend to forget the fact that news cannot happen without journalists. Then comes the journalism that is dangerous which is the type that covers wars. The journalists who give up their safety just to keep people in tune with what is happening in the rest of the world is as dangerous as the soldiers themselves going to fight in the world. Now there’s an idea. Journalists are the ones giving up their lives in war. A final note that can back up Professor Perez would be an article by Johannes Paulsen. The article is titled “Should Journalists be Armed” and it explains the trouble of having guns on the battlefield, because they may be targeted and can actually cause more trouble for the other journalists in the field. She states,” A typical war fought between standing armies from two or more nation-states? These aren’t the 1950’s anymore. Fighting now is a less a clash of nations and more an armed ideological struggle, with the entire world as the potential battlefield.” This statement shows that war isn’t what it used to be and now a days it’s getting riskier and riskier to report live. She also makes a minor joke about if she saw a civilian dressed person with a gun on them going around asking questions to officials and such she would throw that person into jail and wait for their superiors to come out and collect the person. They might look like a spy.The ones that are truly in danger now a days are the journalists and honestly they shouldn’t have guns. If they did then they wouldn’t be able to report and they couldn’t use their stories. Without their stories we wouldn’t know what’s truly going on in the war zones. Like Professor Perez said, “The things that are going on are terrible, and journalists are always in danger, well everyone is in danger out there in the field, because there aren’t any front lines like back in my day.” There will always be danger, but that doesn’t mean there would always be death. Works Cited:Committee to Protect JournalistsAngwin, Julia. "Should Journalists In War Zones Carry Weapons?" WSJ. N.p., 29 Dec. 2003.Web. 07 May 2015.Almasy, Steven. "Video: ISIS Purportedly Beheads Japanese Hostage - ." CNN. Cable News Network, 3 Feb. 2015. Web. 07 May 2015.Paulsen, Johannes. "Should Journalists Be Armed? - The Truth About Guns." The Truth About Guns. N.p., 19 Jan. 2015. Web. 07 May 2015.Chart: Chalabi, Mona. "A Look at Journalists Killed, by Country." DataLab. Committee to Protect Journalists, 04 Apr. 2014. Web. 13 May 2015.Bauder, David. "Fellow Journalists Upset at Geraldo Rivera for Carrying Gun in Afghanistan." Fellow Journalists Upset at Geraldo Rivera for Carrying Gun in Afghanistan. The Nando Times, 12 Dec. 2001. Web. 13 May mittee to Protect Journalists: This whole article is about protecting journalists during war time. It explains the many deaths that have occurred during the last few years. It’s a collection of different posts and stories about what journalists go through during their tours at war time. This can be used to show that journalists are the ones giving up their lives to the people at the same level as soldier or above.Should Journalists Carry Guns: by Julia AngwinThis article describes the advantages of carrying guns in war zones for the safety of the journalist due to modern times, because now in war time journalists are being targeted and is even more unsafe than before.ISIS: Japanese hostage beheaded: Steven AlmasyThis news report reports a death of another journalist at the hands of ISIS. This can be used that the journalist of today are important, because without them there wouldn’t be any news and which is why these types of groups are going after them.Should Journalists Be Armed: by Johannes PaulsenThis article explains the trouble of having guns on the battlefield, because they may be targeted and can actually cause more trouble for the other journalists in the field. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download