Posted on 01/18/2005 7:58:43 PM PST by Pikamax
Journalists' killers 'not being brought to justice'
Dominic Timms Tuesday January 18, 2005
The culprits responsible for killing more than 100 journalists and other media workers worldwide last year are only half as likely to be caught as London burglars, a leading international press group claimed today. The International Federation of Journalists said most of the 129 deaths of media staff in 2004 - the highest on record - resulted from either "deliberate attacks" by gunmen, corrupt officials, armed gangs and governments, or "nervous, unruly and ill-disciplined soldiering".
In most cases, the IFJ added, the killers were still at large. "There's a huge question over impunity and the absence of punishment. Killing reporters is only half as risky as burgling a house in London, where 12 out of every 100 robbers are caught," said Jim Boumelha, the IFJ honorary treasurer.
He said governments were not doing enough to safeguard journalists and called for special legislation to protect them.
"Too many countries and governments are too busy investigating journalists for complicity and tax fraud [rather] than bringing their killers to justice," Mr Boumelha added.
Governments should insist on more transparent and open investigations when journalists were killed, in strong contrast to the "whitewashed" report by the American military into the death of two journalists at the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad in 2003, the IJF said.
The federation also called for a special international law to protect journalists, along the lines of a UN resolution that offers to protect humanitarian workers caught up in the theatre of war.
"The Geneva convention offers no more protection to journalists than it does to civilians. The UN protects the rights of humanitarian workers, it should look at providing similar provision to news media," the body said.
The IJF also called for "more and better training" and called on journalists to share information in a more "open and effective way".
"Journalists should learn that quality coverage is not jeopardised by safety issues," it said.
Mr Boumelha added that there was wide debate in the industry over whether journalists in war zones should be armed or wear distinct uniforms or emblems.
He said freelances were particularly at risk because of the reluctance of foreign media staff to travel to war-torn destinations.
Fear of reprisals and the indifference of governments to attacks on media workers also meant that journalists in some regions were reining in stories, according to Mr Boumelha.
"There's a climate of fear where reporters are less prone to be as sharp as they would with stories and even examples of where reports don't even see the light of day," he said.
Dan Rather needs to spend the rest of his time in the field.
Nope, you are not the only one.
So these guys feel they can go into any war torn region and somehow come away unscathed, and if something should happen to them the world is supposed to drop everything and track down their killers?
They took the risk. This sounds like a personal problem to me.
Nope.
So does Katy Couric and the rest of the MSM reporters!! Up close and VERY personal!!
* Propagandists, BS Artists
Well, keep all the burgling reporters out of London. Perhaps they can report from some place safe like the Bahamas in future.
He said governments were not doing enough to safeguard journalists and called for special legislation to protect them.
Special legislation? Right, get the U.N. involved, they'll protect you.
An interesting aside to this is many of those reporters write storys sympathatic to the thugs and terrorists who ultimately do them in.
That's because so many "journalists" are leftwing nuts dedicated to hindering the efforts good men and women trying to catch the terrorists that behead people like Danny Pearl.
The International Federation of Journalists said most of the 129 deaths of media staff in 2004 - the highest on record - resulted from either "deliberate attacks" by gunmen, corrupt officials, armed gangs and governments, or "nervous, unruly and ill-disciplined soldiering".
But of course the International Federation of Journalists is not concerned by those which result from deliberate attacks. They are only worried about those which can be blamed on the good guys.
In most cases, the IFJ added, the killers were still at large.
In what way has the IFG assisted in the capture of killer like those who cut of Danny Pearl's head, for example?
"There's a huge question over impunity and the absence of punishment. Killing reporters is only half as risky as burgling a house in London, where 12 out of every 100 robbers are caught," said Jim Boumelha, the IFJ honorary treasurer.
'Whatever,' as the kids say...
He said governments were not doing enough to safeguard journalists
Why should government do more?
and called for special legislation to protect them.
Legislation never protected anyone, you idiot. It's just paper...
"Too many countries and governments are too busy investigating journalists for complicity and tax fraud [rather] than bringing their killers to justice," Mr Boumelha added.
Here's a novel idea: Clean up your own crooked profession so other people - armed with more than just paper - will have more time to bring killers to justice.
Governments should insist on more transparent and open investigations when journalists were killed,
What makes journalists so special?
in strong contrast to the "whitewashed" report by the American military into the death of two journalists at the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad in 2003, the IJF said.
Start worrying about "whitewashed" reports about journalists freely endangering themselves in a war zone AFTER you bring Dan Rather, CBS and their forged documents to justice and AFTER you wash your own reports clean of the loonyleftwing bias that infects them.
The federation also called for a special international law to protect journalists,
Laws can't protect people, you moron. They're just paper. It takes PEOPLE to protect you, but what incentive have the people to protect you when you stab them in the back, lie about their beliefs and actions, make up sources, slander real sources, undermine moral values, try to get their sons and daughters killed, gloat each time good people die, and dance around giving free and sympathetic coverage to evil?
along the lines of a UN resolution that offers to protect humanitarian workers caught up in the theatre of war.
Oh, right. Like those 14 +/- UN resolutions saved the Kurds? Saved those missing 2.7 million Iraqis? The Kuwaitis who were abducted into Iraq after Iraq invaded their country?
"The Geneva convention offers no more protection to journalists than it does to civilians.
Hey, moron. You ARE civilian. Nothing more, nothing less. Well, given your behavior and level of usefulness you are a little less, IMHO.
The UN protects the rights of humanitarian workers, it should look at providing similar provision to news media," the body said.
The UN protects the rights of NO ONE. It hasn't got the means.
The IJF also called for "more and better training" and called on journalists to share information in a more "open and effective way".
Then try sharing honest information, it might be more palatable than the bullshiess you usually serve up.
"Journalists should learn that quality coverage is not jeopardised by safety issues," it said.
I don't think you can define "quality coverage." You wouldn't know it if you were hit upside the head with it.
Mr Boumelha added that there was wide debate in the industry over whether journalists in war zones should be armed or wear distinct uniforms or emblems.
How about you guys just wear the uniforms and emblems of anyone fighting the US? That IS where your sympathies lie, after all. At least then you could lay a claim to having SOME integrity.
He said freelances were particularly at risk because of the reluctance of foreign media staff to travel to war-torn destinations.
So...?
Fear of reprisals and the indifference of governments to attacks on media workers also meant that journalists in some regions were reining in stories, according to Mr Boumelha.
Well, CNN reined in their stories in order to maintain access to Iraq, and there was no shortage of journalists taking bribes from the Iraqi regime to produce favorable coverage. I don't think you are concerned about that though... it's probably OK with you if the media sugarcoats dictators like Saddam Hussein and covers up mass executions, REAL torture, etc.
"There's a climate of fear where reporters are less prone to be as sharp...
No, they're not dull because of fear, they're dull because they're far-left liberals and that's what the networks and newspapers want. Admit it, we all know the dumb kids took journalism in college because they couldn't handle the sciences. ;-)
The IFJ says that the investigation by the US government into the killing of two journalists at the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad on April 8 2003, which was issued last November, was a tragic example. “Here was an incident where soldiers fired on media in broad daylight, yet the military exonerate themselves and fail to take responsibility. It is denial of justice on a shocking scale.”
Absolute anti-American horse-manure. This is about the two journalists killed by American tank fire during the 3d Infatry Division's "thunder-run" into Baghdad. The tankers were in the middle of what may have been the most intense firefight of the entire war and were told there were Iraqi artillery & mortar spotters in a high rise across the river. The journalists were on a unmarked balcony in a high rise hotel using binoculars and standing next to a tripod. The US tank crew mistook them for the enemy and fired. Stupidity & culpability, if any, belongs to the journalists who decided to stand on a balcony looking through binoculars during a pitched battle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.