Iraq: Too Dangerous to Cover?

The Surge may be making Iraq safer, but not for those reporting it. Eight out of ten journalists say the war is now harder to cover than it was when they started working there.

From an October survey of 111 journalists in 29 news organizations, the Project for Excellence in Journalism concludes: “They believe they have done a better job of covering the American military and the insurgency than they have the lives of ordinary Iraqis. And they do not believe the coverage of Iraq over time has been too negative. If anything, many believe the situation over the course of the war has been worse than the American public has perceived.”

Outside of the heavily-fortified Green Zone, local staff do the face-to-face reporting, and they can’t carry any equipment, not even notebooks, that might identify them as working for American media out of fear of being killed. Some don’t even tell their families.

According to one print journalist, “The dangers can’t be overstated. It’s been an ambush–two staff killed, one wounded–various firefights, and our ‘home’ has been rocked and mortared (by accident, I’m pretty sure).”

A broadcast editor reported: “It’s dangerous and frustrating. You want to go out and cover stories, but you can’t because of the threat of kidnapping or worse. It’s hard to hear commentators back home say, ‘The media isn’t covering the full story.’ Well, there’s a reason for that, and it’s not bias. When journalists cannot cover a playground being rebuilt because it’s too dangerous to travel around the city, then that playground is not the primary story.”

Politicians, media critics and journalism students, take note.

Cross-posted from my blog.

8 Responses to “Iraq: Too Dangerous to Cover?”

1. Rudi says:

   November 29, 2007 at 3:34 pm

   It wouldn’t be dangerous if they told good stories and took pictures of Iraqis handing flowers to the troops; Billy Kristol tells us so. never mind that this is the DEADLIEST war for reporters, Krauthammer tells us were winning from Washington. Billo from NYC…
2. domajot says:

   November 29, 2007 at 3:41 pm

   I’m betting this survey never surfaces in the MSM.

   The only story there is the success story.
3. Sam says:

   November 29, 2007 at 5:33 pm

   “local staff do the face-to-face reporting, and they can’t carry any equipment, not even notebooks, that might identify them as working for American media out of fear of being killed.”

   You know, recently we’ve had some posts about the fact the Iraq war seems to be slipping in the news. We pointed out a lot of reasons for why that might be but I don’t think anyone mentioned that Iraq is so dangerous serious in depth reporting simply can’t happen. Hence the topical statistical reports we get that convey little real information other than body counts. Hence it slips in the news.
4. bob in fla says:

   November 29, 2007 at 6:24 pm

   I call it what I see, & I see bull crap. Not you, Robert. The reporters.

   First, the excuse that it is too dangerous to cover the war themselves . If this is so, what about the American & European reporters embedded with the troops in the neighborhoods & during the firefights in both Iraq & Afghanistan? People like Michael Trotter & Michael Yon are covering the conditions on the ground & the mood of the locals & troops, as opposed to covering the Green Zone & reporting what the generals & politicians have to say. Their dispatches show us that many areas are enjoying greater security & life in the streets there is better than it was a year ago. Let me add that Yon, at least, also makes it clear the situation could change at any time, dependent on any of a number of things going wrong. While there is more reason than ever to be optimistic, it is a very cautious optimism he expresses.

   Secondly, how can 8 out of 10 say the war is more difficult to cover now than before when over 9 out of 10 never covered the war itself to begin with? It takes a lot of guts to cover a war from the field, & I don’t really blame most of these reporters for avoiding places where there is a real danger of being caught or killed. However, since the overwhelming majority have never gone into the streets to cover this war, how can they accurately say how dangerous it is? Given a choice of reading one of the Green Zone reporters or reading dispatches from one who puts his life on the line on a daily basis to get more of the real story, I’m more likely to believe the guy in the field who is seeing it firsthand.

   Anywho, that’s my two cents worth.
5. Rudi says:

   November 29, 2007 at 8:34 pm

   WTF BinFla – Just Google “reporters killed vietnam” or “reporters killed iraq”. Here’s a site from the search.

   For the third year running, Iraq was the world’s most dangerous country for the media, with 24 journalists and 5 media assistants killed. 76 journalists and media assistants have been killed there since the start of fighting in March 2003, more than in the 1955-75 Vietnam War. Terrorist strikes and Iraqi guerrilla attacks were the main cause but the US army killed three of them. Iraqi TV producer Wael al-Bakri, 30, was shot dead by US troops on 28 June. A US Third Infantry Division spokesman admitted the next day in Baghdad that a US unit was involved in his death and said an enquiry had been opened. No result has been announced, nor in the other investigated killings.

   Trotten and Yon are mostly going with the troops as embeds. One of the last reporters to freelance, Steven Vincent, was killed by Shia militia in Basra a couple of years ago. Please spare us your Laura Ingrahams crocodile tears…
6. Rudi says:

   November 29, 2007 at 8:39 pm

   Here’ another link thats more bleak. Iraq is the DEADLIEST war off all time.
   http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article3172347.ece

   Three times more journalists have been killed in Iraq than in both world wars – many deliberately targeted by militias. Kim Sengupta reports on a forgotten death toll that is still rising
   Published: 19 November 2007

   There were a number of “landmarks” in Iraq in the past few months: the Petraeus report into the US army’s “surge”; the withdrawal of British forces from their last base inside Basra city; the decision to bring security companies under the law following the incident involving guards from Blackwater.

   But one landmark which passed virtually unnoticed was that the Iraq conflict has become the deadliest by far for the media trying to cover it, with more than 200 journalists killed to date. To put this in perspective, two were killed in the First World War, 68 in the Second, 77 in Vietnam and 36 in the Balkans. And the toll in Iraq shows no sign of declining. It is, if anything, rising. Five journalists were killed in separate attacks in just one day last month. “Covering Iraq,” says Chris Cramer, the president of CNN International, ” is the single most dangerous assignment in the history of journalism.”

   Some famous journalists have lost their lives reporting conflicts – Robert Capa in the first Indochina war; Ernie Pyle on the island of Okinawa in the Second World War; Larry Burrows in Vietnam. But what makes Iraq more dangerous than the others is that the deaths are not accidental collateral damage from stray shells or from reporters being caught up in the fighting. Instead, many have been specifically targeted because of what they had reported or because they came from the wrong side of the sectarian divide. They are killed in drive-by shootings or abducted and executed, often after being tortured. There are little or no investigations into the attacks, creating impunity for the killers from the Shia or Sunni militant groups or government run death squads. The deaths have not come just from those quarters, about 15 reporters have been killed by US troops, six from Reuters alone.

   Bob your courage in reporting from Florida is admirable, when are you going to Basra?
7. StockBoySF says:

   November 29, 2007 at 10:07 pm

   I may be wrong about this (and it’s actually sort of interesting)… but I seem to remember that a few years ago the insurgents at one point in time were opposed to killing journalists- the insurgents saw the journalists as a way of getting their message out.

   But I suppose since then they’ve decided it’s more fun to kill us… or that their message was worthless… but I’m being flip.

   But seriously- and I’m throwing this out there to get others’ thoughts. Is it possible that the enemies we were first fighting in Iraq did want to get their anti-American message out? We are occupiers in the home, after all… But perhaps now our enemies in Iraq have a different goal? Perhaps some of our enemies don’t have a “message” they care to share with outsiders and just want everyone out. Perhaps others view the fighting as a civil war and will kill anyone not from their “tribe”. Still others are terrorists- and I imagine they just wants to kill anyone associated with Americans, but they’re not too picky about who they target.

   Perhaps the answer to why the Iraq war is more dangerous to journalists is simple. Maybe there are simply more journalists covering the Iraq war than other wars. There are definitely more competing news/media organizations then there were in WWI or WWII and they are all trying to gain market share…

   But whatever the reason(s) the killing of journalists is still horrific.

   The same question might be asked about doctors in Iraq- I haven’t heard anything… anyone know?
8. domajot says:

   November 30, 2007 at 7:30 am

   Since the surge marks a change that everyone is focused on, it would be useful to have a danger comparison between pre and post surge conditions.
   The Iraq war, as a whole, is one picture.
   Is the post-surge picture different?

   The interesting thing about the survey is that it’s dated October 2007. That’s what got my attention.

   It’s hard to analyze the effect of being embedded with the military. I’ve heard reporters praise their baby-sitting officers for the freedom they allow.
   On the other hand, when interviewing an ordinary Iraqi, whether or not there is a military escort in the background may afftect the responses to questions.

   Over the course of the war,a lot of the reporting has been done from the green zone. Burns, however, seemed able to get out somehow with his own connections. It would be interesting to hear his take on this survey.

   At any rate, it would be a shame if this survey got buried in back pages. It needs to be expanded on instead.