HONOURING THE JOURNALISTS WHO BRING STORIES FROM THE FRONTLINE IN UKRAINE

The first war correspondents were actually soldiers sending dispatches back home from the front lines, reporting from inside the war zone. The 19th century saw the first professional reporters taking on the job, and eventually soldiers were no longer permitted to act as both fighter and reporter. Women entered the profession in the early 20th century, often bucking official prohibitions against their participation. The Vietnam War was the first war to be truly televised, in nearly real time, as opposed to the edited reels shown to drum up morale at home during World War II. Journalists also faced less censorship of their reporting. Since Vietnam, video and television have become essential tools for correspondents, particularly in the era of the 24-hour news cycle and the digital environment. And with the advent of the digital age, anyone with an internet connection can be a war correspondent now; freelancing is common and can be dangerous.

Amid dangers known and unknown war correspondents report what they see and hear. Those words and images live beyond the moment and become part of our history. Reporting on war and life in conflict zones is more than just a job: it’s a calling to bear witness to humanity and inhumanity.

To become a war correspondent is an extreme lifestyle and it takes a certain type of person to be that passionate. The difficulty of balancing safety with the demands of the job is one that all war correspondents face. Some reporters are driven by adrenaline or danger, but many more are driven instead by a need to bear witness to suffering and give civilians a voice. Some war correspondents write with emotion and empathy, mining territory beyond “just the facts” journalism; their reporting may be aimed at changing the course of the war. The reporters not only see civilian suffering caused by war, but they often actively allow themselves to feel the losses rather than shutting them out in the name of objectivity in order to make those safe at home understand the cost of military action.

Simply doing the job exposes journalists to grave danger. The dangers of reporting in areas under active assault, coupled with widespread misinformation and active propaganda intended to obfuscate reality and affect morale, complicates the task of verifying information. Reporters in the field are targets for belligerents despite all the rules protecting journalists. They are civilians, who are keeping the world informed about the progress of the fighting.

Reporters, photographers, videographers, audio journalists, writers and others aim to deliver real-time, independent, in-depth coverage of the conflict and its reverberations across the region. They are witnessing events on the ground as they unfold, reporting from battlefields, hospitals, improvised bomb shelters and contested cities. They trust correspondents on the ground first and foremost. In situations where they cannot be physically present, they work to obtain reliable, first-hand information about events, interviewing witnesses throughout the region. They strive to see through the fog of propaganda and misinformation that emanates from governments on both sides of the conflict.

Visual and graphics editors analyze hundreds of satellite images, photographs and videos of troop movements and fighting, allowing them to map the Russian invasion and confirm independently where soldiers are stationed, who holds key cities and what damage is being done to the country’s bridges, apartment buildings, schools and shopping centers. Some of the richest sources of information come from witnesses who use social media to share videos, photos and reports of what’s happening in their communities. To verify the authenticity of images and to determine if they actually depict what they claim, investigation teams monitor social channels around the clock .

It is often said that in war the first casualty is the truth and it is the war correspondents that have to tell the truth, often in the face of considerable criticism.

Note

Going into the war zone requires journalists to make from the outset a clear ethical choice about how they intend to do their work. There are risks attached to every choice, but choosing to maintain independence and work outside the protective arm of the military carries with it more risks, which is why journalists and the media who send them on mission, should prepare themselves more diligently for the task.

Regrettably, many journalists head to war ill-prepared for the challenge. Many have little or no hostile environment training and very often they are unaware of the conditions they can expect. Many are ignorant of their legal rights and responsibilities.

Few know that the United Nations Security Council passed an historic resolution in 2006 calling for an end to impunity in the killing of journalists or that in 2012 all of the major UN agencies agreed a comprehensive ‘Action Plan on the Safety of Journalists’. These are required readings for journalists covering conflict: they spell out the rights of journalists and the obligations of states to provide media with protection where it is possible.

But few journalists are aware that international law governing armed conflict recognises that reporters play a special role in times of war. The Geneva Conventions, for instance, offer special protections to journalists and media staff. All combatants, whether engaged in all-out shooting wars, civil strife or low-level territorial disputes, should be reminded of it.

The link between safety and ethics may not be immediately obvious, but the same ambitions and economic factors that pressure inexperienced and poorly prepared freelance journalists to enter battle zones also pressure journalists to present the news as they think that their paymasters most want to hear it.

The news becomes what sells best, and certainly at the start of a conflict, accounts of the horrors of war and pictures of dead soldiers (at least from ‘our’ side) are not what many senior television executives prefer to be putting out.

Journalists should also know that although they always run the risk of being captured and shot as spies, international humanitarian law says that accredited journalists travelling under the protection of an army are to be regarded as part of the accompanying civilian entourage.

If captured by opposing forces they must be treated as prisoners of war. Those who threaten or execute journalists on the battlefield should be brought to trial to face punishment that is sanctioned by international law.

Some principles of good ethical behaviour are essential no matter the nature of the conflict and how it is fought. For instance, journalists covering a conflict rely on the support of local people – translators, drivers, fixers – and all journalists should ensure that they are treated with respect and provided with protective equipment, decent work contracts and insurance in case of accident or injury.

And one of the cardinal principles of journalists – protection of sources – becomes ever more important when lives are at risk. Journalists have obligations to the people they report about. They must not reveal the identity of their sources if they are at risk. People will not tell journalists important news if they fear they will be revealed.

When courts and public authorities ask journalists to hand over material that will reveal a source of information, the ethical reporter will instinctively demur and, if necessary checking with the source first, protect that source even at cost to themselves.

But in times of war, when journalists are witness to unspeakable acts of inhumanity, this principle can come under intense pressure. Most journalists find it impossible to turn a blind eye to the horrors of war and there are occasions when journalists find their conscience impels them to cooperate with the authorities.

Sometimes in the midst of inhumanity and injustice journalists are forced to choose whether or not to intervene to help the victims of violence. They have to choose carefully because even when they have the best of intentions, journalists may not be as helpful as they think.

Journalists have to remember their primary role is to record events, expose malpractice, and circulate facts and information. They are not participants in conflict and they need to consider carefully when the suffering of others, just like calls to patriotic duty, pulls them away from doing their job professionally.

Sometimes, the simplest way of keeping journalists safe is for media staff on all sides of a conflict to join together. Journalists are notoriously individualistic in their approach, but industry solidarity can reduce risks in reporting conflicts