The other day in class our professor welcomed us with the question, "Would you carry a gun as a war correspondent?" Now, before I get into the moral arguments surrounding this subject let me paint you a clearer picture.
You are a Journalist in Afganistan. You are embedded within the American military, living and travelling with American soldiers. You have one job: to legally report anything from within the American camp and the enemy, if possible. You chose to put yourself in this high risk environment. You are not there to shoot, kill, ambush or change the course of events. You are purely there to report.
Personally, I don't think I would ever choose to be a war correspondent but for the purpose of this question, we will pretend we are willing to do so. So, now you are surrounded by soldiers who are all armed. They are there to do their job but also protect you and make sure you are safe. Upon your arrival the soldiers offer you a weapon to use for your survival or whenever you think it's necessary. Here's the question, do you take it?
In class, a number of my class mates were quick to say that they would definitely take the weapon. Why? For their survival they answered. To defend themselves in a life or death situation. So you've taken the gun to protect yourself, but will you protect the life of others? Put yourself in the position where you are watching one of your own soldiers about to be shot and killed. You have a gun. You could shoot the enemy. Is it your job to shoot the enemy? If you don't, will you just watch a man die when you could've helped? If you shoot, are you going to carrying on firing? This is where the boundaries are opened up and you find yourself in the difficult position of trying to justify when it is or isn't the right time to use your gun.
Now many of you reading this are probably thinking, "no shit, I'd take a gun to save myself and if I needed to kill the bad guys, I would." You're a journalist, not a soldier. You are not meant to be interfering or changing any natural course of events. It is not your job to shoot. But if you do fire, is that morally right? When you write your article, are you going to include that you contributed to the fighting in Afganistan? If you don't tell your readers you shot and killed people, are you being truthful as a journalist? Remember, as a journalist our number one rule is to relay the truth to the public.
In my eyes, if you decide that you want to be a war correspondent you have to expect the worse. Obviously when you enter a war zone there is a very high risk of death but that is your decision. If I was offered a weapon in that situation I would have to refuse. It's not my job to be armed, nor would it be to shoot or kill. I would have to take a neutral ground and stay unarmed. Imagine a soldier is about to be killed. If you have a gun and shoot the opposition, you live with the guilt of killing when it wasn't your duty to do so. If you have a gun and don't shoot, you live with the guilt of not saving the soldier's life when you could have protected him. For these reasons, I don't think it's right for a journalist to be armed when they're embedded within the military.
This discussion is endless and it's a big issue in the journalism industry. But I challenge you to ask yourself what you would do? On the other hand, if you were reporting in the enemies camp would you shoot at American soldiers to save your life? Would you warn the American military if the enemy is planning an ambush? In my opinion, you cannot be biased as a journalist. You can't pick and chose when you want to be patriotic. It's important that you serve your primary purpose as a journalist, which is to provide the public with the truth. At the end of the day, you are there to do your job not to contribute to the war. Finally, as a journalist if you want to be respected and maintain a good reputation you cannot be biased or have a history of betrayal.
This was just a tiny snippet of the discussion we had in class. I know many of you won't be familiar with journalism practices and ethics, but I hope this gave you an insight into the moral dillemas that journalists have to make. Every journalist has their own views as to what their job is as a reporter. Fundamentally, this is why the media is such a complicated device as every person, company, CEO or news channel has conflicting opinions on the role of modern journalism.
What would you do?
Are you going to take the gun?
"Even the most rational approach to ethics is defenseless if there isn't the will todo what is right." - Alexander Solzhenitsyn
This blog was very different to my usual stuff, but I really hope I got you thinking! Let me know :)
Ciao,
Hannah x
