The eyes of the world through the lens of a camera.
I’m regularly asked by people if what we do as journalists can change anything. Well it’s not our job to set out and change the world – we are there to witness and report the world’s events neutrally without fear or favour. At best our job is to inform people and let them know what is going on, which is a valuable part of the democratic process.
Wise words from Channel 4 News cameraman Stuart Webb. I’m intrigued to know that if journalists/cameramen film what they see in front of them, do they have to remain impartial. It is, after all – reality. I think during times of war it can be hard to remain impartial but one thing it can do is open our eyes up to those particular events and we can judge for ourselves.
All the pictures of atrocities in Bosnia didn’t stop the war there or end the genocide in Rwanda – but maybe the pictures and experience of Bosnia prompted the west to act quicker in Kosovo.
Stuart goes on to say in his blog that the media can play a vital role particularly when it comes to natural disasters and works vitally hard to get the best possible pictures to convey the mess of a particular situation.
But natural disasters are maybe one area where the media can have a very positive influence. People at home and around the world can only gauge how bad a disaster really is when the media all pitch up and show it.
The coverage becomes part of process which prompts people and governments to donate money and act. So when I cover a story like Haiti I always work as hard as I can to get the story out – I’m there to do my job but if what I do can help, then there is a responsibility to try even harder.
War and natural disasters are hard and dangerous enough places to work in without having to focus on getting your piece accurate and impartial. For me bearing witness, recording events and informing the public with the lens of a camera is just as important.
In the Line of Fire, won the International Current Affairs RTS Award in 2004. The film has some remarkable footage moments after a US bomb in Iraq – killing 16 and injuring 45. It provides a unique insight into the horrors of war. I recommend you watch it.
Another video featuring a cameraman – this time Brit Jeff Chagrin, who was shot while attempting to cover Afghanistan.
Canadian journalist Irshad Manjid interviewed Christiane Amanpour on moral courage. This is what Ms Amanpour said about reporting on the Bosnian war and she and her colleagues were being criticised for ‘going a bit native’:
“I STOOD UP AND I BEGAN THEN TO QUESTION OBJECTIVITY BECAUSE OUR GOLDEN RULE IS OBJECTIVITY. IT’S NOT TO GO OUT THERE AND TAKE SIDES AND TO SET AN AGENDA PER SE. IT’S REALLY TO PURSUE AND TELL THE TRUTH. THERE ARE EXTRAORDINARY SITUATIONS LIKE GENOCIDE, IN WHICH WE HAVE TO REALLY LOOK AT WHAT WE DO. WE CANNOT SAY THAT OBJECTIVITY MEANS NEUTRALITY. WE CANNOT DRAW A FALSE EQUIVALENCE. WE CANNOT BE PARTY TO WHAT OUR POLITICIANS ARE TELLING THE WORLD, WHICH IS THAT THERE WAS EQUIVALENCE AND THAT ALL SIDES WERE EQUALLY GUILTY.”
I think this can apply to all reports on war.
Here’s the full interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5y6V9gRu5I&feature=PlayList&p=CAF15EC44D6A8B17&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=57
I think that reporters who go off to wars and natural disasters are a great deal braver than I am.
The seminars we had last week about reporting from developing countries made me feel very dubious about going there myself.
I do wonder though if the general emphasis on conflict and catastrophe doesn’t skew things in terms of impartiality.
If all we ever see on the Television is footage of fighting and misery and if all we ever hear on the radio is – well more fighting and misery, then surely it follows that all we associate with the developing world is, yes war and misery.
But it’s not all like that. My housemate is from Kenya, which has had it’s bad times, but the country that he speaks of is vibrant and full of colour.
It could well be that reports from the developing world may be impartial in themselves but cause us to be less so in our view of those places?
One thing I really took from the One World workshops (as well as an incredible fear for my life) was Sophie Chalk’s advice to pitch positive angles for stories. She said that right now, the ideas being commissioned are often those taking a more optimistic view. So, it may be a terrible situation but if you can find one person or situation, an inspirational story or unique, positive twist then your more likely to sell the idea.
‘Afghan Star’ was a great example of this, and the advice has really made me consider what I might look at for my MA project.
But hang on …. thinking about it though – surely by going into my project with the mindset of looking for the positive, I’m no longer neutral or impartial? Its a complicated one!
One issue that has arisen during out International Law classes is how to maintain impartiality when embedded with a military unit. How do you remain impartial when living alongside the soldiers, sharing many of the same hardships & terrors as them, as well as the major factor of not being able to tell both sides because access to the ‘enemy’ is restricted.
Objectivity & transparency are major factors when it comes to war reporting, as does contextualising the information you are giving out, explaining to the audience exactly what you’re telling them.
Andy
Yes although I do think it’s primarily about safety when the journalist becomes an embedded journalist. I interviewed Oliver Poole some time ago about his time as a war reporter in Iraq for the Telegraph – he said to me that it was frankly just too dangerous to ‘freelance’ in a place like Iraq at the height of the invasion. He told me that the army had their very own press officer that would walk around with him telling him who and who he couldn’t interview.
This may seem blatantly partial but in all honesty at the end of the day the people whom he’s embedded with cover his back and they will usually take him into some pretty extreme hostile environments – which he may not have been able to have gotten to by himself. So I think being embedded certainly has its advantages but it might not seem all that impartial.
His Iraqi fixer also carried a gun in the car when he was with him for fear of being kidnapped and tortured. This raises certain ethical issues of whether a journalist should be given a gun for self-defence? I think not. But you might want one when people are firing off shots at you…
Besides the strong news pictures of the initial bombing of Baghdad back March 2003, and the toppling of Saddam’s statue with Iraqi civilians stamping on his head. For me what sticks out robustly in my mind about the Iraq war was not the coverage on the broadcast media or in the newspapers. But the footage shot by soldiers on websites such as http://www.liveleak.com/.
This was the gritty side of war from the people at the forefront – the soldiers. I was transfixed by these uploads – chiefly by American soldiers – and regularly visited the website for updates of raw footage of IED explosions or suicide bombing aftermaths. Call me morbid – but I tend not to shy from reality. I was fascinated by these videos often shot poorly on cheap hand-held videocams – it was something the news media couldn’t provide me. I think it may not have shown the complete picture and was obviously very ‘pro-American’ in certain circumstances but it gave me a direct picture of life in Iraq.
Glyn, a lot of it depends on which Army you are embedded with. If it is the British Army, then yes you will be assigned a press officer and he will decide who you speak with and what they are allowed to say.
If it is the US Army you will simply assigned to a unit and allowed to get on with things. US soldiers are given a small amount of “press relations” training; as in a 30min PowerPoint presentation that most sleep through. What they say to the press is usually left up to the individual soldier and then they will feel the repercussions later is if the higher ups don’t like it.
As for remaining impartial I think that Andy is right. As long as you make it clear in your reports that you are embedded and only seeing one side things you’re not doing anything wrong. It’s all about keeping the audience aware of the context from which you are reporting.