FIRST PUBLISHED AT http://www.conversation.wamu.org/
(These are Mark's views, not WAMU's views, AU's views, or any other U's views)
2009 was a risky year for foreign journalists. There were 113 deliberate killings of reporters across the world and Iraq and Afghanistan were NOT the most dangerous countries to cover. Those were The Phillippines, Mexico, and Somalia.
Its what we used to call a "vicious circle". The more corruption, tribalism, lawlessness, poverty and conflict there is, the more vital the story, and the bigger the likelihood of getting killed.
The BBC and other organizations offer intensive training for staff in war-zones and tough places. They range from battlefield conduct to first aid. Sophisticated equipment and body armor is also available. Western military also offers "embedded" reporting opportunities, but many forgo this, believing that the military protection itself compromises the reporter's independence. And its still no guarantee of safety, far from it. The ability to tell a story on the internet has encouraged some reporters to go it alone, without the protection of relatively wealthy news organizations or Governments. Its tough to report a hurricane unless you head right into it. Likewise with war.
But the publicity which typically surrounds the killing of a prominent western reporter belies the reality that the vast majority of victims are local reporters, either trying to cover the struggles and conflicts of their own people, or hired help for the major networks on the ground. The United Nations and the European Union have called for more protection for journalists, at the urging of reporter pressure groups.
Let's just say a prayer for the brave folks in our own networks - NPR, PRI and BBC, who are at risk each and every day bringing us the news from where the news really is.
And, trust me, as I tell my students, glamorous it ain't.
