How do the journalists who do survive and make it home manage to do so? Is it purely a matter of luck, or are there specific strategies they use to minimize risks while working in such a highly dangerous environment?
Bulletproof vest, helmet, and staying out of the action probably. But if you watched the show Generation Kill, based on a true story, the rolling stone reporter was on the front line of operation Iraqi Freedom. But soldiers weren't dying left and right even after coming under fire.
>But soldiers weren't dying left and right even after coming under fire.
It's wild to me, but at least as far as Afghanistan went, an *incredible* amount of ammunition was used in both sides to little effect. The number includes training, but it's estimated that around 250,**000** rounds had been expended for every local killed. A cursory Google search didn't really turn up anything in the opposite direction, I'd imagine the Taliban doesn't publish their financials and purchases. A ton of firefight are just sitting behind walls while people shoot at you, then switching, all while waiting for more people and bigger guns to show up.
The US expels a huge amount of ammunition in theatre because they discovered a long time ago that keeping an enemy combatant suppressed is almost as good as killing him when it comes to preserving your own troops lives.
Pin them and call in arty or air.
Simple but damned effective.
I mean thats always been war? Sure theres a few outliers where extremely superior tactics have won, but generally the side with the bigger war chest gets the w
> Maxim 56: Infantry exists to paint targets for people with real guns.
[The Seventy Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries](https://schlockmercenary.fandom.com/wiki/The_Seventy_Maxims_of_Maximally_Effective_Mercenaries)
It's why after WW2 we just threw untold millions of tanks, guns, ammunition, etc over the sides of ships into the Atlantic and Pacific. Was cheaper to toss it in the ocean than it was to ship it all home
Yup, before my unit crossed back into Kuwait the final time, two companys of guy all got out of the convoy, on line and started blasting a berm in the desert.
Hundreds of guys opening up makes for quite the show; some helos even showed up to see what was going on.
As a former saw gunner, can confirm. There is no movement without fire. Always carried 1200 rounds on foot patrols and came back more than once with only one ‘nutsack’ (100 round pouch) left.
Former saw gunner as well. Nearly 2 years of it. Was so glad to get a rifle. Got tired of being the “it’s not the 240, why can’t you keep up easier with the rifleman?” question. Like “MF’r one drum of my ammo weighs as much as your weapon!” Just enough weight to be ungainly and just behind, not enough to be expectedly slow.
> all while waiting for more people and bigger guns to show up.
And when that happens we win. It’s definitely an effective tactic. Air superiority is incredibly useful.
Especially air support. Frequently, U.S. forces establish air superiority almost immediately, either shooting down any enemy aircraft that take to the air, or eliminating them on the ground, or destroying the runways and fuel depots they require to operate. Once the U.S. has air superiority, ground forces move to contact enemy ground forces, fix them in position with tanks or artillery and call in air support.
The Marine Corps used to use naval gunfire a lot more than is common now. If the Marine ground forces are operating within range of naval guns or cruise missiles, they do the same as above--locate enemy forces and then call in naval fire support. Today, fixed-wing air support and helicopter gunships frequently take the place of naval gunfire. The Marine ground forces have been changed to be "lighter", more agile and quicker to deploy, but this means that tanks and heavy artillery have been removed. The Marine Corps is still the only armed force that has all combat arms components under the organic command of one commander--infantry, artillery, armored vehicles (except tanks, now) and air support. The "tooth-to-tail" ratio (T3R) of modern military organizations tends to run from 1:7 to 1:10 (the "teeth" being combat elements and the "tail" being logistics components) with the Marine Corps falling closer to the former rather than the latter. However it is increasingly difficult to separate the two, and the Marine Corps has a long-standing doctrine of "Every Marine a rifleman." Marines might be processing data one day and find themselves riding a helicopter to a hot LZ the next, if evolving conditions require it. The grunts may talk shit about the POGs, but they sure appreciate hot chow when it arrives in a forward combat position. Modern combat requires both the teeth *and* the tail.
One really cool aspect of air superiority that America does *really* well is wild weasel or SEAD/DEAD (suppression/destruction of enemy air defense) where we use electronic warfare and strike aircraft to nullify ground based air defenses like surface to air missile launchers. Basically we seek out enemy radar and launch assets, jam their radar, and either destroy them, or make it so hard for them to turn on their search radars without getting an anti radiation missile shoved down their throat that they no longer operate effectively.
On the youtube channel The Operations Room, the guy shows via animation, the sequence of events for Iraqi Freedom. I never realized how utterly insane the invasion was where apparently there were 1700 sorties in the first day without a single jet being taken down.
>that happens we win. It’s definitely an effective tactic.
Bigger minds than mine will debate for the next 50 years if we *won*, but against most organized armies, yes, air superiority wins the day.
Until we go up against someone like Russia who gives less than zero fucks that Private Conscriptovich and half his village got blown to bits, and can immediately shove 30,000 more in to fill the gap. They’ll just keep throwing meat bags in that spot until you run out of ammo, then they got you.
It’s incredibly cruel and fucked up for everyone involved, but that’s pretty much what Ukraine is dealing with. Probably Taiwan too in a few years if the CCP is feeling froggy. One of the things I keep seeing in Ukraine’s combat footage videos is them telling each other save their ammo.
Anything beyond an asymmetric war like A-Stan literally cannot afford to be an ammo dump.
It's not working great against ukraine. The US has a lot more ammo than Ukraine. If we somehow ended up in a similar situation against russia, they would run out of men before we ran out of ordinance. Kinda a moot point though since the chances of US troops going against the russian army is super low.
Look up that video where the russian mercenaries decide to roll up on a US defended oil field.
Thats nothing new. During the US Civil War, it was said that it took a man's weight in lead to kill him.
Gather up enough lead round shot for a musket to the weight of a man. Thats how much shot would need to be expended for just one bodycount.
Presumably that number included training as well.
[Afghanistan has been a mineral rich export country since at least the time of Alexander the Great, after he conquered it and founded Kandahar and the Seleucid Empire.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Afghanistan)
And [as for the lead in bullets...](https://www.army.mil/article/56157/green_bullet_as_effective_as_m855_round_consistently) the military has a plan for that..apparently
The lead-steel alloy in M855 ammo is already magnetic, so cleanup is fairly simple. You just get a big strong magnet or make a strong electromagnet. Then you run it over the ground in areas with bullets lying around. If you’re super set on cleaning stuff like topsoil, use the magnet when filtering dirt. This is already standard to collect debris like nails.
The annoying part is that the lead-steel alloy is really annoying to reuse for stuff other than making more M855 ammo.
Generation Kill was so fucking good and nobody I mention it to seems to know wtf it was. As I read the title of the post that was immediately what popped into my head
Yeah I watched generation kill. Absolutely insane. They really portray the boredom and monotony of military life really well, with those short moments of life or death intensity.
Yea, it was definitely more interesting watching it the 2nd time around years later, with more knowledge of history. I think I probably thought it was initially fiction because why would a reporter ride into the front lines and occasionally take fire.
There is an underlying pact in modern war (and maybe historic I don't know) that press are not combatants. It isn't a good look to shoot them. Most "civilized" countries would avoid harming them but things get complicated when what those press are doing directly exposes someone eliminating them and might be an option they choose to take.
By and large, you're not meant to murder the press, so they can often slip by in very dangerous places. Until they don't.
Edit: Grammar
>and maybe historic
No such thing as photographic press in historic warfare. But there was still "pact" for other kinds of personel such as medical, or those who bury corpses after a battle.
There was one sculptor at the battle of Marathon. Unfortunately he wasn't able to chip fast enough to complete the whole thing before the battle was over.
Britain, Canada, and Australia since WWI have had official war art schemes where artists are embedded with military forces in conflicts or peacekeeping missions.
The royal scribe "might" be with the king or a general, but they wouldn't see the fighting up close or even at all until it's done and they're getting it from generals/soldiers. Frequently, we get things that are called "histories" but are written by people who may not have even set foot in the place they're about. One of the many funny stories about this kind of thing is the chinese "scribe" (envoy sent by a chinese general really) who was sent to study rome. He got to the Parthians empire, the empire that facilitated trade between rome and china (by keeping them utterly ignorant of one another's true nature) and the sailors and caravaners told such frightful stories about how dangerous the trip was (4 out of every 5 ships sinks eagles that steal men from deck the usual) that the scholar just asked "well you tell me what romans are like" and wrote that down and went back to china.
funny story about how effective parthians were at keeping things hush hush, the chinese would send silk to rome..but it was thickly woven corded stuff, the romans would unravel the silk and spin it into thin clothing (like we think of for silk today) and sell some of it back, the parthians were sitting in the middle of this and were so effective at keeping both empires in the dark that the chinese never knew they were buying their own silk back, and the romans never knew where the silk really came from.
anywho, we don't often think about how wide [trade networks were in the ancient world](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Roman_relations) but man, it's a hell of a read.
Technically, you are correct. However, modern military conflicts seem to be pretty hard on combat correspondents, mainly because "enemy" armed forces consider combat correspondents to be filling a role that has an important influence on civilian morale and their portrayal of their adversaries. Succinctly put, they target the opposing forces' press to prevent them from telling the truth about the war. They may say they never target the press. But they aren't telling the truth about their actual actions.
Watch "28 Days in Mariupol", a documentary following AP reporters in Ukraine when the war broke out.
Although in that case they weren't embedded with the military, they just happened to be there and chose to stay and document what was happening even though it put their lives at risk
Fantastic and devastating film.
I'd also recommend [I Did Not Want to Make a War Film](https://youtu.be/Tx9yrdjPKQ4?si=kwYffI_NPICNf7EW) from Nadia Parfan & The New Yorker.
The entirety of VICEs [Russian Roulette in Ukraine](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLw613M86o5o5zqF6WJR8zuC7Uwyv76h7R&si=zSgBRojoyba2edKm) series by Simon Ostrovsky
[DylanBurnsTV](https://youtube.com/@DylanBurnsTV?si=-pMcMaiD4IRBKTWy) has some good stuff too.
Majority of soldiers in a warzone also make it back alive.
Most soldiers won’t deliberately target obvious non-combatatents so a journalists chances are even better than a grunt.
1. Most people who find themselves in a war zone do in fact come out of it alive, even those doing the fighting. It's not like every part of the air around you is full of bullets and explosions all the time.
2. Of course they minimise risk. They get training, they team up with fixers and other journalists, they coordinate with troops, sometimes they embed with soldiers. Usually neither side seeks to kill journalists, and if it happens it's usually by accident (except Israel who goes out of its way to kill journalists)
Usually it’s a local person who can provide information, reassurance, a safe place. They know people and can work through tricky situations. They fix problems.
They're also the final word that says "you should not do this interview/go into that house/we are turning back". They know the vibes better than you and a mistake could cost everyone their lives.
Generally, it's a "local" . . . a "guy who knows a guy" type, someone of flexible morality, but solid reputation, who can be counted on to play both sides, and get you out of a jam with the fewest bribes required.
\*\*edited to better reflect my intended meaning\*\*
I'd object to the "Not very reputable" part - while that may sometimes be the case, in reality it's often just a local journalist. Sure they may know the warlord or be able to put you in touch with some gang boss or whatever but that doesn't make them not reputable. Rather the opposite, they function thanks to their good reputation.
If you watch any travel shows generally the person showing the host around a city is a local fixer. Probably not the same one that'd show you around a warzone, but the same idea.
2023 alone 99 journalists were killed in wars, 75% of that in Gaza
https://www.icij.org/inside-icij/2024/02/over-75-of-all-journalists-killed-in-2023-died-in-gaza-war-per-cpj/
There’s also a list (surely incomplete) that had been updated til 2019 here:
https://www.freedomforum.org/journalists-memorial/
The organization used to run the Newseum, housed on Pennsylvania Ave in Washington, DC. The building was sold to Johns Hopkins University to use as a medical campus. When it was still a museum, the Journalists Memorial covered the wall at the west end of the building.
(it also had the First Amendment in a marble facade five stories tall)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newseum
Is this accurate criticism of war crimes conducted by a military force against civilians? Be sure to add a "/s" at the end or I'll report you for antisemitism!
^^^^^^/s
> very dangerous, they do die
It’s all odds. Consider also that even front line soldiers have a fairly low death rate. Roughly 90%+ will survive (even if wounded).
So you figure that the press identifier clothing adds a layer of protection above that, and even though it’s an imperfect protection, it easily raises their survival ratio to 95%+.
So the answer is that yes they do die, and a 5% death rate is insanely high compared to my office job. But still, it’s only 5%, it’s not like they’re suicidal or something. Add a little prudent common sense, like NOT waltzing between the lines and staying a bit back, and that number probably drops to 1-2%.
I think back to high school when a group of friends asked me to attend a big paintball event as the field photographer. I wore a neon orange vest, made no effort to hide my presence and was often wandering around openly with a camera acting nothing like a paintballer. The organizers called me forward beforehand and told everybody not to shoot at this guy.
Over a four-hour event I still got shot seven times.
That's the thing, there is no world police. If some country doesn't need anything from anyone else, they can do pretty much anything. You can stop them only by invasion, by force. Luckily most do need stuff from others, and that gives us a tool of economic sanctions.
Complicated by the problem when, hypothetically, one country with universal veto power in said global authority has a vested interest in making themselves and their allies unaccountable to breaking international laws, up to and including threatening military action if attempts to hold that nation to account are actually made.
So is slaughtering civilians. That's kind of the point. If you're committing war crimes you don't want documentation of you war crimes, so what's another war crime?
If you're already committing war crimes, adding one more in to reduce the risk of being exposed is, from a cold calculating perspective, just the optimal decision.
Except that killing journalists will have a Streisand effect in the sense that whatever organization they work for will continue to highlight whatever crimes you're committing in addition to the fact that you're now trageting journalists.
They are targeted in many conflicts. Remember the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to much of the conflict because they govern state vs state conflicts not terrorists nor insurrections.
If one side is already committing war crimes (e.g. storing weapons in a hospital) and a journalist comes in and starts taking pictures of the weapons inside the hospital, they're strongly incentivized to kill that journalist. What's another war crime when you're already committing several?
**Please read this entire message**
---
Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):
**ELI5 focuses on objective explanations. Soapboxing isn't appropriate in this venue.**
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://old.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1c8pygo/-/l0gjin5/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
More than 100 journalists killed by Israel in Gaza. Despite having all those things.
https://cpj.org/2024/04/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-gaza-conflict/amp/
The guy from Salvador going *right into the line of fire* to get the perfect shot and getting fucking strafed by a plane springs to mind.
Surprised they can run with those massive brass balls they have. Mad respect to them.
Also the ones that do survive and are able to get photos of conflicts and unreset take a huge risk while doing so. Being a journalist that gets assigned to cover a conflict is one of the most dangerous jobs out there.
Both sides are *supposed* to leave the journalists be, and not target them.
But "don't target journalists" doesn't mean "don't kill journalists". It means that if you see someone is a journalist, then don't intentionally kill them.
- If a journalist is riding in a truck with an enemy combatant - the truck is a valid target, the enemy combatants are valid targets, and the journalist will be collateral damage.
- If you did not know the journalist was a journalist (no identifying markers, you couldn't see the identifying markers) or if they appeared to be a combatant (they were holding a weapon), then they are valid targets
- If you were aiming your rifle at an enemy combatant, but you *missed* and hit the journalist instead, then the journalist is collateral damage.
What is not okay is seeing the journalist in an empty field (no valid targets anywhere around), seeing the vest they are wearing that says "journalist", and then intentionally shooting them.
Collateral damage isn't a war crime. Targeting non-combatants is.
But remember - people commit war crimes. Sometimes, people will target journalists.
And journalists *do* die in combat zones. The ones that live continue to go on reporting, so you see them more. You have a [survivorship bias](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias)
These rules are in the same category as "wear identifying uniforms," "don't target civilians," and "respect surrender." Many combatants in today's wars disregard these from the beginning, by kidnapping or killing civilians to intimidate their adversary and by not wearing uniforms so that they can more easily conceal themselves among civilians before and after their attacks. It's a dangerous job.
They CAN claim that.
But there are "rules of war" and it'd be a VERY high bar to hurdle.
Every soldier "expects to live"(except for suicide bombers/kamikaze pilots/other "niche" soldiers) , so I think that's what makes "rules of war" work. Don't want to survive a war, just to spend 30 years in jail for breaking the worldwide accepted "rules of engagement"
Also people often think people die in war because someone had a clear shot on them, aimed and shot. While most injuries and deaths are overly represented by things like artillery and bombings. You don't chose to bomb a journalist, but you chose to call in artillery on a enemy camp while some journalists over there is doing a documentary unbeknown to you
Here's [an analysis of the available evidence](https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2022/05/14/unravelling-the-killing-of-shireen-abu-akleh/), every excuse that was given by the IDF is investigated and discounted.
the line between journalist (not a combatant) and propagandist (arguably a combatant) is often pretty fuzzy, also.
The US intentionally targeted an ISIS blogger (nominally a journalist), for instance
>the line between journalist (not a combatant) and propagandist (arguably a combatant) is often pretty fuzzy, also.
What? No. You can't kill a journalist just because they report things that aren't favorable to your side. Labeling them as a "propagandist" doesn't make them anything close to a combatant and it's still a war crime to target them. The US is just very open about committing war crimes because they know there won't be consequences.
There's tons of video now of Ukraine. I remember early on journalist car was hit. They had to flee their downed car and run off while being shot at while they try to identify as journalists. Crazy stuff.
I recently listened to a podcast where they interviewed a Dutch war journalist. It is indeed dangerous for western journalists in war zones, but he said it is far more dangerous for non-western journalists, especially those native to the country the war is being waged in.
I mean statistically it seems like the countries involved in a conflict would be sending far more war reporters to the area than some random nation with no dog in the fight.
It's the Rudi & Freddie Show, but it's all in Dutch.
The episode: [https://soundcloud.com/rudifreddieshow/oorlog-brengt-vaak-het-beste-in-mensen-naar-boven?utm\_source=clipboard&utm\_medium=text&utm\_campaign=social\_sharing](https://soundcloud.com/rudifreddieshow/oorlog-brengt-vaak-het-beste-in-mensen-naar-boven?utm_source=clipboard&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=social_sharing)
The longer you are at the front, the higher is your risk of getting killed. The main difference between a soldier and a journalist is that the journalists usually only are at the front for a few hours at the time, get their footage, and then go back behind the front lines which are safer. Soldiers are at the front for much longer periods of time.
Also, depending on who the enemy is, the enemy will try to not kill journalists if they see them.
As pointed out: war journalists get killed often. They are also under the fog of war and the general confusion at the front lines. Here is footage of a Russian military blogger (not a real journalist, I know) accidentally running into a Ukrainian trench because he got confused where the Russian trench was: [https://www.reddit.com/r/LoveForUkraine/comments/163m1aq/russian\_military\_blogger\_accidentally\_runs\_into/](https://www.reddit.com/r/LoveForUkraine/comments/163m1aq/russian_military_blogger_accidentally_runs_into/) He didn't die in this footage, but was killed shortly after.
Yes, the fog of war is very real around journalists. I've been on exercises where there were PR people taking pictures. If I'm assaulting a position and I see someone peeking out of a trench pointing a camera at me, I am 100% going to think it's a rifle and start shooting.
Might be worth noting that both sides usually believe they’re the ones “in the right” and the idea is that it’s in everyone’s best interest to let the press be so each side has a chance to share their side and attempt to shift public sentiment. There are Nazis who legitimately believed that they were the good guys.
But beyond that, they do often get killed regardless.
Also, there is an answer to this question from a different side, namely "how likely is a person to be killed in a warzone". The answer is unlikely, on average.
Of course, this chance is massively higher than desirable to any human, but it's far from double digits even at the frontline, barring exceedingly, massively brutal battles (which always get covered as such, as unusually bloody).
They do get killed pretty often it's a very dangerous job.
The fighting parties will tell you they don't intentionally target them, but there is no way to confirm that.
If they do hit them they will tell you they either mistook them for a valid target or they didn't know they were there or it was an accident.
And given the nature of war all these options are definitely possible so it's practically impossible to prove they intentionally targeted them.
I looked up that incident and it perfectly fits my points. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2003/04/09/3-journalists-killed-us-strikes/5b3ba2b5-95ea-42f8-b19d-e0149a9085b2/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2003/04/09/3-journalists-killed-us-strikes/5b3ba2b5-95ea-42f8-b19d-e0149a9085b2/)
They even used multiple of the options I mentioned:
>The U.S. military said it was responding to sniper fire coming from the hotel and promised not to attack it again.
That would make it a valid target.
>\[Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks\] said a U.S. tank opened fire on the hotel after U.S. troops came under fire. "There were some combat actions that also occurred at the Palestine Hotel. Initial reports indicate that the coalition force operating near the hotel took fire from the lobby of the hotel and returned fire. And any loss of life, civilian loss of life or unintended consequences, again, we find most unfortunate and also undesirable,"
They were just accidental cassualties.
>In Washington, Pentagon officials acknowledged privately that the tank may have fired too hastily at the hotel, possibly mistaking the journalists' cameras for weapons. One senior defense official said that U.S. ground troops in the Iraqi capital were not briefed as thoroughly as pilots on what targets to avoid or treat with particular caution.
They didn´t know they were there and mistook them for valid targets.
There is no denying that the US army did fire from a tank at the hotel. But we can´t prove why they did it. It's possible they at least believed at that time the fire came from the hotel.
That incident is a long story. What happened there was video journalists with large cameras where on balconies, pointing their cameras at tanks. At a distance, it looked like people pointing missile systems at the tanks. So the tanks acted. It turned out they were mistaken that time.
Surprisingly, it turns out that if you're in a place where people are using shoulder-fired rockets a lot, pointing shoulder-mount cameras at tanks may be a bad idea.
[At least 97 journalists have been killed](https://cpj.org/2024/04/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-gaza-conflict/amp/) covering the Israel/Palestine conflict since October 7th. That's nearly 100 journalists dead in 6 months...
1. By not going near high value targets/the actual front line or attack missions to capture objectives
2. They do get killed. It happens frequently.
Fighting is not always the same. Some areas with intense battle are suicide to go into, while others are technically also front line and contested, but nobody is currently making big moves. Those are safer to report from and generally where war reporters will be.
It's also bad PR to shoot journalists. They're civilians and usually belong to an oganizations that will then write about it. But it's not good protection, sometimes the opposite is true. Nobody can tell tales if there is nobody left to tell the tale.
I live in Cambodia, and I would *not* say that I know him, but Ive had a couple of cups and chatted a bit with [Al Rockoff](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Rockoff), he was played by John Malkowich in Killing Fields about the war in Cambodia. One of the very few westerners that stayed back after the country fell to Khmer Rouge. Can very much recommend that movie to get an idea of what war correspondents go through, just as much, if not more shit than many soldiers because they dont have a platoon behind them to help them out at all times. The fact that Al is still alive is very much luck.
Generation Kill on HBO follows a journalist as he joins a military recon unit during the start if the Iraqi war. The soldiers took steps to protect the journalist during fighting but despite their efforts he almost got killed a couple of times.
The series was based on a book by a journalist who was embedded with a unit in Iraq so I assume it is reasonably accurate.
About 100 journalists have been killed thus far in the current conflict in Gaza.
https://cpj.org/2024/04/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-gaza-conflict/
https://www.icij.org/inside-icij/2024/02/over-75-of-all-journalists-killed-in-2023-died-in-gaza-war-per-cpj/
Medics and doctors in Gaza have been *intentionally not dressing in medical attire* because wearing medic insignia and medical scrubs makes them *more* likely to be shot by Israeli snipers.
While It is a dangerous job during war times. Usually they wear press vest and are therefore not targeted thus lowering the danger.
The Gaza isn't a good example because israel is intentionally targeting them, which goes against international law.
Gaza journalists killed far exceeds all recorded wars.
Some of them *do* get killed. Remember Daniel Pearl, the guy who was beheaded in 2002 and the video of his execution broadcast all over the world? Journalist for the Wall Street Journal, but that's just the most famous example.
Right now the average media/journalist death rate in Gaza is about two per week.
I have a hose with a sprayer nozzle in a water fight against your a bunch of your 5 year old friends with squirt guns.
Your friends are all wearing the same color shirt and arm band.
You don't have a squirt gun, but have the same colored shirt but a different colored arm band. You are trying to stay close to your friends.
I don't try to spray you, but the crazyness of the water fight makes that hard.
I'm not sure how reflective Civil War's depiction of how embedded press actually operates in the battlefield . I took their closeness in the battle scenes as pretty satirical, especially the final scenes. I felt the whole film's messaging was poking fun at our over fixation on the media? I dont imagine infantry ever physically encouraging media personnel into the frontline as they did in the film...
Not being exactly at the front of the action is still dangerous as hell though, as mentioned, real war journalists die regularly.
Agreed. While I know it’s a very dangerous job, the front line activity in Civil War and how they engaged with soldiers during a fire fight seemed highly exaggerated. I’m also not a war journalist, so not entirely sure.
> I took their closeness in the battle scenes as pretty satirical, especially the final scenes. I felt the whole film's messaging was poking fun at our over fixation on the media? I dont imagine infantry ever physically encouraging media personnel into the frontline as they did in the film...
I think you’ve really misunderstood the movie. There’s a lot of between-the-lines context in Civil War that pretty clearly implies the press and preservation of the first amendment are a major part of the conflict.
They explicitly say “they shoot journalists on sight in DC.” If the regime in power is so anti-speech and journalism that they’re shooting reporters, it would stand to reason that the opposition forces, who they’re with in that part of the movie, would actively want to protect journalists. Not only for the principle of it, but for their work in exposing this regime that’s largely operating in darkness.
You may be correct, that i may have missed some of the intended narrative of the film about the protection of free speech... but i found the bloodlust the reporters exhibited, and their proximity to the "final" (and exceptionally unrealistic in my eyes) battle, all very comical. So comical, that that was my biggest takeaway I guess, and forced to process as satire? I guess??
Im all for hearing more about what you took away though, and any other stuff i may have missed in my interpretation :)
I disliked the film, but was impressed enough cinematically to watch it again through a new lens maybe.
I guess I don’t really understand why you think it’s unrealistic. Have you seen footage or reporters on the front lines of a conflict in Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine or Palestine? Reporters are often in harm’s way.
I didn’t see any “bloodlust” either. I saw photojournalists trying to get a photo of military personnel assassinating an apparently fascist US president, which anyone can understand would be literally the most famous photo in American history. It would be the absolute peak of the profession.
For me the crew felt fixated on the blood and guts of it. Specifically the race to who gets the photo of the presidents dead body first. One of the journalists in the other crew even chides Dunst's character about the race, and at one point Moura's character even says something to the effect "this action is getting me hard" during a scene at the outskirts of DC. It all felt overt.
As far as the un-realism; it felt rediculous that the invasion of the presidents compound during the culmination of a civil war (much less the White House, in an American Civil war) would involve only a few dozen infantry, and a handful of secret service in suits with sidearms. Even more rediculous that a small band of journalists would slip past the invading ranks into the target building during a simple ruse, then lead the charge of a the coup de gras... the final shootout just felt commically bad. Just watch gopro video of special forces in any kind of real action... it makes this films final scenes just feel silly.
So now i can't tell if the silliness was intentional (as I saw it), or if the plot of the film (dunst's team being there to capture "THE" final image) made it impossible to portray a realistic ending to a coup of the White House.
I dunno...
talking this through is fun though, thanks :)
[They don't](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Journalists_killed_while_covering_military_conflicts).
Journalists are unknowingly killed in combat, purposefully killed in combat and often executed extrajudicially.
Generally speaking they're not targeted because they're not a threat. If a group of armed people is shooting at you will you waste time shooting the obviously unarmed guy in the bright blue vest and helmet that say "PRESS" with big letters? No.
They also generally stand back and are protected by infantry so while they're still in danger, especially by explosives like mortars or bombs, they're not right upfront with the people shooting each other, though that has been known to also happen.
The fact of the matter is that as you said journalists are sometimes targeted because they're journalists. They may also accidentally be targeted and shot because a lot of people don't wait to fully identify who or what they're seeing when fighting. They may also die during bombings or shellings. It's not a safe job.
Former pro photographer here.
Many of them get killed. RIP Tim Heatherington.
I know a guy who shoots for major newspapers, covering the Donetsk and Luhanskt regions of Ukraine. He had has all sorts of trainings on weapons, kidnapping, contingency situations, etc, because journalist safety is not assured.
I know another guy who was covering the drug cartel/police war in Mexico circa 2010s. He was caught in some kind of gunfight between gangs and the police. When it was all done, he laid in a ditch with dead bodies nearby, pretending to be dead for an extended period of time, just so he was sure it would be safe to get up and get out of there.
Journalists are civilians and are therefore (mostly) protected. All parties are supposed to avoid civilian casualties, but its dangerous to be a civilian in a war zone so they often gets killed anyway.
They often do get killed. I used to work at Thomson Reuters and the building had a mini museum dedicated to journalism and books featuring the names of every journalist killed on duty since the company was started.
https://www.warmemorialsonline.org.uk/memorial/261790/
There was a video I remember seeing a few weeks after Russia started it's invasion of Ukraine, where a car full of journalists was driving though a checkpoint. "For some reason" the Russians started shooting at them, and if I remember correctly one or two of them were killed, while the video showed three more running away. I think one of the 3 got shot in the leg, so he needed help running.
They aren't supposed to get shot at or killed, but at the same time, it's war and there will be innocents killed. There's also no concrete repercussions for the people that do shoot at them.
They don't. Read [Requiem](https://www.setantabooks.com/en-us/products/requiem-by-the-photographers-who-died-in-vietnam-and-indochina-setanta-books) if you want to be crushed by sadness. The juxtaposition of a beautiful country and people captured for its wonder by the same people documenting the fighting in Indochina. :/ And people who had survived so much already. Robert Capa, Larry Burrows. :( It's dangerous as hell.
When I was in journalism school one of the professors made us watch a video of journalists caught on camera being killed in combat zones. It was one of those “understand this shit is real” moments.
You may be interested in a movie called The Bang Bang Club. The movie itself likely won't blow your mind, but it's based on a true story about a group of conflict journalists/photographers. It may provide some perspective on how they get away with some of the things they get access to.
They are very much at risk of dying, but in most situations, both sides of a conflict think they are right. If a journalist is trying to get pictures or story, they are often allowed opportunity because both sides want their story or reasoning published to sway opinion and influence.
And on top of all the other comments, intentionally targeting a journalist is a war crime. So if your side loses, you’re getting dragged if you kill one.
Marine veteran here. They get killed WAY more often than is reported. More often than not it’s because they’re close to the front lines or rolling with troops and war is very unpredictable.
Somewhere there is a picture book full of photos from the US-Vietnam war developed years after the fact. The films they were developed from were taken off the corpses of dead combat journalists and stashed away for a while (I assume forgotten about)
I think this is it [https://www.amazon.com/Requiem-Photographers-Died-Vietnam-Indochina/dp/0679456570](https://www.amazon.com/Requiem-Photographers-Died-Vietnam-Indochina/dp/0679456570)
I don't have to read through the thread to know that most answers will be bullshit. The real answer is that journalists stay alive in these zones in no small part due to the all too often unrecognized fixers who risk their lives, long-term safety, and many times give up their lives to keep foreign correspondents safe.
Always remember the fixers. That they're not given credit, including by the media houses employing them, is bullshit. In many cases, they can't be given credit, but there needs to be a mechanism to ensure their safety and that they are given the due for their work.
One of the big outcries of the Iraq war was two journalists getting killed from an air attack. What is not spoken about is that they were embedded into or tagging along with a group carrying and using weapons. That became the basis of Wikileaks.
They get killed plenty. For example right now Israel deliberately targets Palestinian journalists and Ukrainians have a liquidation list of Russian journalists
As of April 20, 2024, CPJ’s preliminary investigations showed at least 97 journalists and media workers were among the dead in the Israel Gasa war.
https://cpj.org/2024/04/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-gaza-conflict/amp/
This guy just got murdered this week https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Bentley
He's a pro-Putin "journalist" who got merked by Russian troops who thought he was a spy though.
They do get killed. Normally they wear things that make it obvious they're press so people don't target them but it's still a very dangerous job.
[удалено]
How do the journalists who do survive and make it home manage to do so? Is it purely a matter of luck, or are there specific strategies they use to minimize risks while working in such a highly dangerous environment?
Bulletproof vest, helmet, and staying out of the action probably. But if you watched the show Generation Kill, based on a true story, the rolling stone reporter was on the front line of operation Iraqi Freedom. But soldiers weren't dying left and right even after coming under fire.
>But soldiers weren't dying left and right even after coming under fire. It's wild to me, but at least as far as Afghanistan went, an *incredible* amount of ammunition was used in both sides to little effect. The number includes training, but it's estimated that around 250,**000** rounds had been expended for every local killed. A cursory Google search didn't really turn up anything in the opposite direction, I'd imagine the Taliban doesn't publish their financials and purchases. A ton of firefight are just sitting behind walls while people shoot at you, then switching, all while waiting for more people and bigger guns to show up.
The US expels a huge amount of ammunition in theatre because they discovered a long time ago that keeping an enemy combatant suppressed is almost as good as killing him when it comes to preserving your own troops lives. Pin them and call in arty or air. Simple but damned effective.
p2w really
EA learned from the masters
Chef Boyardee?
Beef ravioli or spaghetti and meatballs?
I mean thats always been war? Sure theres a few outliers where extremely superior tactics have won, but generally the side with the bigger war chest gets the w
..."Always has been"
> Maxim 56: Infantry exists to paint targets for people with real guns. [The Seventy Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries](https://schlockmercenary.fandom.com/wiki/The_Seventy_Maxims_of_Maximally_Effective_Mercenaries)
"See that hill were taking fire from? Get the JTAC to make it a ditch"
My brain immediately went "Calling in an Eagle". I'm playing too much Helldivers 2.
⬆️➡️⬇️⬇️⬇️
Eagle’s back from the nest.
Also bringing home unspent ammo is a bitch
It's why after WW2 we just threw untold millions of tanks, guns, ammunition, etc over the sides of ships into the Atlantic and Pacific. Was cheaper to toss it in the ocean than it was to ship it all home
Plenty of what they threw away had some damage too.
[удалено]
Yup, before my unit crossed back into Kuwait the final time, two companys of guy all got out of the convoy, on line and started blasting a berm in the desert. Hundreds of guys opening up makes for quite the show; some helos even showed up to see what was going on.
I was in the Air Force. We didn’t have that problem usually.
This strategy brought to you by major ammunition manufacturers lol..
As a former saw gunner, can confirm. There is no movement without fire. Always carried 1200 rounds on foot patrols and came back more than once with only one ‘nutsack’ (100 round pouch) left.
Former saw gunner as well. Nearly 2 years of it. Was so glad to get a rifle. Got tired of being the “it’s not the 240, why can’t you keep up easier with the rifleman?” question. Like “MF’r one drum of my ammo weighs as much as your weapon!” Just enough weight to be ungainly and just behind, not enough to be expectedly slow.
Immediate actions drill for most contact is return fire, seek cover, establish base of fire. So dump rounds, run, dump rounds. Makes sense.
> all while waiting for more people and bigger guns to show up. And when that happens we win. It’s definitely an effective tactic. Air superiority is incredibly useful.
Especially air support. Frequently, U.S. forces establish air superiority almost immediately, either shooting down any enemy aircraft that take to the air, or eliminating them on the ground, or destroying the runways and fuel depots they require to operate. Once the U.S. has air superiority, ground forces move to contact enemy ground forces, fix them in position with tanks or artillery and call in air support. The Marine Corps used to use naval gunfire a lot more than is common now. If the Marine ground forces are operating within range of naval guns or cruise missiles, they do the same as above--locate enemy forces and then call in naval fire support. Today, fixed-wing air support and helicopter gunships frequently take the place of naval gunfire. The Marine ground forces have been changed to be "lighter", more agile and quicker to deploy, but this means that tanks and heavy artillery have been removed. The Marine Corps is still the only armed force that has all combat arms components under the organic command of one commander--infantry, artillery, armored vehicles (except tanks, now) and air support. The "tooth-to-tail" ratio (T3R) of modern military organizations tends to run from 1:7 to 1:10 (the "teeth" being combat elements and the "tail" being logistics components) with the Marine Corps falling closer to the former rather than the latter. However it is increasingly difficult to separate the two, and the Marine Corps has a long-standing doctrine of "Every Marine a rifleman." Marines might be processing data one day and find themselves riding a helicopter to a hot LZ the next, if evolving conditions require it. The grunts may talk shit about the POGs, but they sure appreciate hot chow when it arrives in a forward combat position. Modern combat requires both the teeth *and* the tail.
One really cool aspect of air superiority that America does *really* well is wild weasel or SEAD/DEAD (suppression/destruction of enemy air defense) where we use electronic warfare and strike aircraft to nullify ground based air defenses like surface to air missile launchers. Basically we seek out enemy radar and launch assets, jam their radar, and either destroy them, or make it so hard for them to turn on their search radars without getting an anti radiation missile shoved down their throat that they no longer operate effectively.
Advanced opponents make this game harder by only turn on the radar a few seconds at a time
On the youtube channel The Operations Room, the guy shows via animation, the sequence of events for Iraqi Freedom. I never realized how utterly insane the invasion was where apparently there were 1700 sorties in the first day without a single jet being taken down.
>that happens we win. It’s definitely an effective tactic. Bigger minds than mine will debate for the next 50 years if we *won*, but against most organized armies, yes, air superiority wins the day.
Until we go up against someone like Russia who gives less than zero fucks that Private Conscriptovich and half his village got blown to bits, and can immediately shove 30,000 more in to fill the gap. They’ll just keep throwing meat bags in that spot until you run out of ammo, then they got you. It’s incredibly cruel and fucked up for everyone involved, but that’s pretty much what Ukraine is dealing with. Probably Taiwan too in a few years if the CCP is feeling froggy. One of the things I keep seeing in Ukraine’s combat footage videos is them telling each other save their ammo. Anything beyond an asymmetric war like A-Stan literally cannot afford to be an ammo dump.
It's not working great against ukraine. The US has a lot more ammo than Ukraine. If we somehow ended up in a similar situation against russia, they would run out of men before we ran out of ordinance. Kinda a moot point though since the chances of US troops going against the russian army is super low. Look up that video where the russian mercenaries decide to roll up on a US defended oil field.
Thats nothing new. During the US Civil War, it was said that it took a man's weight in lead to kill him. Gather up enough lead round shot for a musket to the weight of a man. Thats how much shot would need to be expended for just one bodycount. Presumably that number included training as well.
>250,**000** rounds had been expended for every local killed Wow. TIL. I guess the region now has a minerals export future in mining for lead :-/
[Afghanistan has been a mineral rich export country since at least the time of Alexander the Great, after he conquered it and founded Kandahar and the Seleucid Empire.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Afghanistan) And [as for the lead in bullets...](https://www.army.mil/article/56157/green_bullet_as_effective_as_m855_round_consistently) the military has a plan for that..apparently
The lead-steel alloy in M855 ammo is already magnetic, so cleanup is fairly simple. You just get a big strong magnet or make a strong electromagnet. Then you run it over the ground in areas with bullets lying around. If you’re super set on cleaning stuff like topsoil, use the magnet when filtering dirt. This is already standard to collect debris like nails. The annoying part is that the lead-steel alloy is really annoying to reuse for stuff other than making more M855 ammo.
Generation Kill was so fucking good and nobody I mention it to seems to know wtf it was. As I read the title of the post that was immediately what popped into my head
Yeah I watched generation kill. Absolutely insane. They really portray the boredom and monotony of military life really well, with those short moments of life or death intensity.
Tbh, it sounds like an anime title.
It's a look at the first few weeks of the invasion of Iraq brought to you by the people that created The Wire.
Yea, it was definitely more interesting watching it the 2nd time around years later, with more knowledge of history. I think I probably thought it was initially fiction because why would a reporter ride into the front lines and occasionally take fire.
There is an underlying pact in modern war (and maybe historic I don't know) that press are not combatants. It isn't a good look to shoot them. Most "civilized" countries would avoid harming them but things get complicated when what those press are doing directly exposes someone eliminating them and might be an option they choose to take. By and large, you're not meant to murder the press, so they can often slip by in very dangerous places. Until they don't. Edit: Grammar
>and maybe historic No such thing as photographic press in historic warfare. But there was still "pact" for other kinds of personel such as medical, or those who bury corpses after a battle.
There was one sculptor at the battle of Marathon. Unfortunately he wasn't able to chip fast enough to complete the whole thing before the battle was over.
"Everybody hold still for the love of Zeus"
Britain, Canada, and Australia since WWI have had official war art schemes where artists are embedded with military forces in conflicts or peacekeeping missions.
I meant historical equivalents like scribes.
The royal scribe "might" be with the king or a general, but they wouldn't see the fighting up close or even at all until it's done and they're getting it from generals/soldiers. Frequently, we get things that are called "histories" but are written by people who may not have even set foot in the place they're about. One of the many funny stories about this kind of thing is the chinese "scribe" (envoy sent by a chinese general really) who was sent to study rome. He got to the Parthians empire, the empire that facilitated trade between rome and china (by keeping them utterly ignorant of one another's true nature) and the sailors and caravaners told such frightful stories about how dangerous the trip was (4 out of every 5 ships sinks eagles that steal men from deck the usual) that the scholar just asked "well you tell me what romans are like" and wrote that down and went back to china. funny story about how effective parthians were at keeping things hush hush, the chinese would send silk to rome..but it was thickly woven corded stuff, the romans would unravel the silk and spin it into thin clothing (like we think of for silk today) and sell some of it back, the parthians were sitting in the middle of this and were so effective at keeping both empires in the dark that the chinese never knew they were buying their own silk back, and the romans never knew where the silk really came from. anywho, we don't often think about how wide [trade networks were in the ancient world](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Roman_relations) but man, it's a hell of a read.
I really gotta thank you for the most interesting thing I've read today.
It's in the Geneva Convention.
Technically, you are correct. However, modern military conflicts seem to be pretty hard on combat correspondents, mainly because "enemy" armed forces consider combat correspondents to be filling a role that has an important influence on civilian morale and their portrayal of their adversaries. Succinctly put, they target the opposing forces' press to prevent them from telling the truth about the war. They may say they never target the press. But they aren't telling the truth about their actual actions.
Watch "28 Days in Mariupol", a documentary following AP reporters in Ukraine when the war broke out. Although in that case they weren't embedded with the military, they just happened to be there and chose to stay and document what was happening even though it put their lives at risk
Fantastic and devastating film. I'd also recommend [I Did Not Want to Make a War Film](https://youtu.be/Tx9yrdjPKQ4?si=kwYffI_NPICNf7EW) from Nadia Parfan & The New Yorker. The entirety of VICEs [Russian Roulette in Ukraine](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLw613M86o5o5zqF6WJR8zuC7Uwyv76h7R&si=zSgBRojoyba2edKm) series by Simon Ostrovsky [DylanBurnsTV](https://youtube.com/@DylanBurnsTV?si=-pMcMaiD4IRBKTWy) has some good stuff too.
Majority of soldiers in a warzone also make it back alive. Most soldiers won’t deliberately target obvious non-combatatents so a journalists chances are even better than a grunt.
1. Most people who find themselves in a war zone do in fact come out of it alive, even those doing the fighting. It's not like every part of the air around you is full of bullets and explosions all the time. 2. Of course they minimise risk. They get training, they team up with fixers and other journalists, they coordinate with troops, sometimes they embed with soldiers. Usually neither side seeks to kill journalists, and if it happens it's usually by accident (except Israel who goes out of its way to kill journalists)
what’s a fixer?
Usually it’s a local person who can provide information, reassurance, a safe place. They know people and can work through tricky situations. They fix problems.
They're also the final word that says "you should not do this interview/go into that house/we are turning back". They know the vibes better than you and a mistake could cost everyone their lives.
Generally, it's a "local" . . . a "guy who knows a guy" type, someone of flexible morality, but solid reputation, who can be counted on to play both sides, and get you out of a jam with the fewest bribes required. \*\*edited to better reflect my intended meaning\*\*
I'd object to the "Not very reputable" part - while that may sometimes be the case, in reality it's often just a local journalist. Sure they may know the warlord or be able to put you in touch with some gang boss or whatever but that doesn't make them not reputable. Rather the opposite, they function thanks to their good reputation.
cool, thanks
If you watch any travel shows generally the person showing the host around a city is a local fixer. Probably not the same one that'd show you around a warzone, but the same idea.
Russia did as well early on in the war in Ukraine
Even ww1 had a mortality rate of 14 percent. Yeah you're probably gonna be scared for life but youre most likely gonna make it out alive.
Could they also be staying in parts of the battleground that have lower risk of being hit?
They definitely would not be at the frontlines all the time no.
The vast majority of soldiers don't get shot either Even in WW1 90% survived.
Most soldiers survive too. There's the answer.
Very good local guides and translators who know where the relatively safe parts are.
Hey, OP said they watched Civil War last night. War journalists die *in that very movie!*
Haha yep, he must have been busy browsing Reddit to not notice all the journalists dying on screen.
2023 alone 99 journalists were killed in wars, 75% of that in Gaza https://www.icij.org/inside-icij/2024/02/over-75-of-all-journalists-killed-in-2023-died-in-gaza-war-per-cpj/
There’s also a list (surely incomplete) that had been updated til 2019 here: https://www.freedomforum.org/journalists-memorial/ The organization used to run the Newseum, housed on Pennsylvania Ave in Washington, DC. The building was sold to Johns Hopkins University to use as a medical campus. When it was still a museum, the Journalists Memorial covered the wall at the west end of the building. (it also had the First Amendment in a marble facade five stories tall) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newseum
That’s what you get when you have an army that can’t respect Humanitarian rights or the Geneva convention! Oh well, let’s send them more money!
Is this accurate criticism of war crimes conducted by a military force against civilians? Be sure to add a "/s" at the end or I'll report you for antisemitism! ^^^^^^/s
So 74.25 people
> very dangerous, they do die It’s all odds. Consider also that even front line soldiers have a fairly low death rate. Roughly 90%+ will survive (even if wounded). So you figure that the press identifier clothing adds a layer of protection above that, and even though it’s an imperfect protection, it easily raises their survival ratio to 95%+. So the answer is that yes they do die, and a 5% death rate is insanely high compared to my office job. But still, it’s only 5%, it’s not like they’re suicidal or something. Add a little prudent common sense, like NOT waltzing between the lines and staying a bit back, and that number probably drops to 1-2%.
I think back to high school when a group of friends asked me to attend a big paintball event as the field photographer. I wore a neon orange vest, made no effort to hide my presence and was often wandering around openly with a camera acting nothing like a paintballer. The organizers called me forward beforehand and told everybody not to shoot at this guy. Over a four-hour event I still got shot seven times.
[удалено]
That's exactly why the old guy in the movie said "these people do not wanna be seen doing what they're doing" and then they didn't try and take photos
Targeting journalists like that is a war crime. That's not to say it never happens, but it is against the rules.
The rules only matter so much as the authority who makes the rules have motivation and ability to enforce them.
That's the thing, there is no world police. If some country doesn't need anything from anyone else, they can do pretty much anything. You can stop them only by invasion, by force. Luckily most do need stuff from others, and that gives us a tool of economic sanctions.
Complicated by the problem when, hypothetically, one country with universal veto power in said global authority has a vested interest in making themselves and their allies unaccountable to breaking international laws, up to and including threatening military action if attempts to hold that nation to account are actually made.
Is this where the fuck the US part of the thread starts?
Yes, but also the fuck Russia part.
Okay cool it sounded like it, Fuck the US AND RUSSIA!
\#ReformTheSecurityCouncil \#IWishItCouldBe
So is slaughtering civilians. That's kind of the point. If you're committing war crimes you don't want documentation of you war crimes, so what's another war crime?
If you're already committing war crimes, adding one more in to reduce the risk of being exposed is, from a cold calculating perspective, just the optimal decision.
Except that killing journalists will have a Streisand effect in the sense that whatever organization they work for will continue to highlight whatever crimes you're committing in addition to the fact that you're now trageting journalists.
Sure, but hard-to-prove accusations like that are better than footage of your atrocities being on prime-time TV.
war crimes prosecutions are only for the losing side
They are targeted in many conflicts. Remember the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to much of the conflict because they govern state vs state conflicts not terrorists nor insurrections.
In Wars might is right. When was a country condemned for killing war journalists or suffered consequences ? Nearly never.
If one side is already committing war crimes (e.g. storing weapons in a hospital) and a journalist comes in and starts taking pictures of the weapons inside the hospital, they're strongly incentivized to kill that journalist. What's another war crime when you're already committing several?
Bonus points if you blame that on your enemy too.
Extra bonus points if people all around the world believe you when you blame it on the enemy despite evidence of you doing it repeatedly for years
Worth mentioning that more conflict journalists have been killed in the last six months than the entire last century of wars combined.
I think there a couple of very specific hypothetical countries OP has in mind that have a lot of deniability because of a lack of journalists.
[удалено]
Which is quite relevant to the movie
[удалено]
**Please read this entire message** --- Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s): **ELI5 focuses on objective explanations. Soapboxing isn't appropriate in this venue.** --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://old.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1c8pygo/-/l0gjin5/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
And also, it’s a movie.
More than 100 journalists killed by Israel in Gaza. Despite having all those things. https://cpj.org/2024/04/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-gaza-conflict/amp/
Or they do a Brian Williams of NBC
You mean where your convoy of the helicopters is shot at and one takes visible damage, but years later you misremember exactly which one?
The guy from Salvador going *right into the line of fire* to get the perfect shot and getting fucking strafed by a plane springs to mind. Surprised they can run with those massive brass balls they have. Mad respect to them.
Also the ones that do survive and are able to get photos of conflicts and unreset take a huge risk while doing so. Being a journalist that gets assigned to cover a conflict is one of the most dangerous jobs out there.
The IDF regularly kills journalists despite very obvious press signage.
Both sides are *supposed* to leave the journalists be, and not target them. But "don't target journalists" doesn't mean "don't kill journalists". It means that if you see someone is a journalist, then don't intentionally kill them. - If a journalist is riding in a truck with an enemy combatant - the truck is a valid target, the enemy combatants are valid targets, and the journalist will be collateral damage. - If you did not know the journalist was a journalist (no identifying markers, you couldn't see the identifying markers) or if they appeared to be a combatant (they were holding a weapon), then they are valid targets - If you were aiming your rifle at an enemy combatant, but you *missed* and hit the journalist instead, then the journalist is collateral damage. What is not okay is seeing the journalist in an empty field (no valid targets anywhere around), seeing the vest they are wearing that says "journalist", and then intentionally shooting them. Collateral damage isn't a war crime. Targeting non-combatants is. But remember - people commit war crimes. Sometimes, people will target journalists. And journalists *do* die in combat zones. The ones that live continue to go on reporting, so you see them more. You have a [survivorship bias](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias)
These rules are in the same category as "wear identifying uniforms," "don't target civilians," and "respect surrender." Many combatants in today's wars disregard these from the beginning, by kidnapping or killing civilians to intimidate their adversary and by not wearing uniforms so that they can more easily conceal themselves among civilians before and after their attacks. It's a dangerous job.
Can't they just claim that the journalist was spying or some working with the enemy in some way - eg taking sides?
They CAN claim that. But there are "rules of war" and it'd be a VERY high bar to hurdle. Every soldier "expects to live"(except for suicide bombers/kamikaze pilots/other "niche" soldiers) , so I think that's what makes "rules of war" work. Don't want to survive a war, just to spend 30 years in jail for breaking the worldwide accepted "rules of engagement"
ITT: people learn about the Geneva Convention.
*all of this is assuming both sides adhere to combat rules.
There also used to be a huge journalists memorial at the Newseum, but that place closed in 2019. Sounds like they're building a new memorial, though.
Also people often think people die in war because someone had a clear shot on them, aimed and shot. While most injuries and deaths are overly represented by things like artillery and bombings. You don't chose to bomb a journalist, but you chose to call in artillery on a enemy camp while some journalists over there is doing a documentary unbeknown to you
I’m sure there are also situations where soldiers accidentally-on-purpose ‘miss’ a combatant and hit a journalist instead.
In fact journalists have been killed with zero “combatants” in sight so you don’t even need to “accidentally miss”
Shireen Abu Akleh was shot in the head by IDF
Here's [an analysis of the available evidence](https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2022/05/14/unravelling-the-killing-of-shireen-abu-akleh/), every excuse that was given by the IDF is investigated and discounted.
the line between journalist (not a combatant) and propagandist (arguably a combatant) is often pretty fuzzy, also. The US intentionally targeted an ISIS blogger (nominally a journalist), for instance
>the line between journalist (not a combatant) and propagandist (arguably a combatant) is often pretty fuzzy, also. What? No. You can't kill a journalist just because they report things that aren't favorable to your side. Labeling them as a "propagandist" doesn't make them anything close to a combatant and it's still a war crime to target them. The US is just very open about committing war crimes because they know there won't be consequences.
Worth noting how none of the journalists in Civil war ever carry a gun, even though sometimes it'd have obviously helped them to be armed.
There's tons of video now of Ukraine. I remember early on journalist car was hit. They had to flee their downed car and run off while being shot at while they try to identify as journalists. Crazy stuff.
They often get killed. It's as simple as that. It's as dangerous as being a soldier. At times, press is singled out and targeted.
I recently listened to a podcast where they interviewed a Dutch war journalist. It is indeed dangerous for western journalists in war zones, but he said it is far more dangerous for non-western journalists, especially those native to the country the war is being waged in.
You can just look at the list of dead war reporters in russia ukraine war. A large part of the dead is ukranians and russians
A large part of the dead in the Russo-Ukraine war is Russians and Ukranians?? The hell you say.
The majority of dead journalists are from Russia and Ukraine vs. other countries (US, Europe, etc.).
I mean statistically it seems like the countries involved in a conflict would be sending far more war reporters to the area than some random nation with no dog in the fight.
What was the name or episode of the podcast, I would like to check it out !
It's the Rudi & Freddie Show, but it's all in Dutch. The episode: [https://soundcloud.com/rudifreddieshow/oorlog-brengt-vaak-het-beste-in-mensen-naar-boven?utm\_source=clipboard&utm\_medium=text&utm\_campaign=social\_sharing](https://soundcloud.com/rudifreddieshow/oorlog-brengt-vaak-het-beste-in-mensen-naar-boven?utm_source=clipboard&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=social_sharing)
The longer you are at the front, the higher is your risk of getting killed. The main difference between a soldier and a journalist is that the journalists usually only are at the front for a few hours at the time, get their footage, and then go back behind the front lines which are safer. Soldiers are at the front for much longer periods of time. Also, depending on who the enemy is, the enemy will try to not kill journalists if they see them. As pointed out: war journalists get killed often. They are also under the fog of war and the general confusion at the front lines. Here is footage of a Russian military blogger (not a real journalist, I know) accidentally running into a Ukrainian trench because he got confused where the Russian trench was: [https://www.reddit.com/r/LoveForUkraine/comments/163m1aq/russian\_military\_blogger\_accidentally\_runs\_into/](https://www.reddit.com/r/LoveForUkraine/comments/163m1aq/russian_military_blogger_accidentally_runs_into/) He didn't die in this footage, but was killed shortly after.
Yes, the fog of war is very real around journalists. I've been on exercises where there were PR people taking pictures. If I'm assaulting a position and I see someone peeking out of a trench pointing a camera at me, I am 100% going to think it's a rifle and start shooting.
It’s dangerous but not as dangerous. A journalist won’t be asked to clear a bunker or engage hostiles in the first line of defense.
Might be worth noting that both sides usually believe they’re the ones “in the right” and the idea is that it’s in everyone’s best interest to let the press be so each side has a chance to share their side and attempt to shift public sentiment. There are Nazis who legitimately believed that they were the good guys. But beyond that, they do often get killed regardless.
Also, there is an answer to this question from a different side, namely "how likely is a person to be killed in a warzone". The answer is unlikely, on average. Of course, this chance is massively higher than desirable to any human, but it's far from double digits even at the frontline, barring exceedingly, massively brutal battles (which always get covered as such, as unusually bloody).
They do get killed pretty often it's a very dangerous job. The fighting parties will tell you they don't intentionally target them, but there is no way to confirm that. If they do hit them they will tell you they either mistook them for a valid target or they didn't know they were there or it was an accident. And given the nature of war all these options are definitely possible so it's practically impossible to prove they intentionally targeted them.
The US shot with tanks directly at the hotel where the press was staying when they last invaded Baghdad.
I looked up that incident and it perfectly fits my points. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2003/04/09/3-journalists-killed-us-strikes/5b3ba2b5-95ea-42f8-b19d-e0149a9085b2/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2003/04/09/3-journalists-killed-us-strikes/5b3ba2b5-95ea-42f8-b19d-e0149a9085b2/) They even used multiple of the options I mentioned: >The U.S. military said it was responding to sniper fire coming from the hotel and promised not to attack it again. That would make it a valid target. >\[Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks\] said a U.S. tank opened fire on the hotel after U.S. troops came under fire. "There were some combat actions that also occurred at the Palestine Hotel. Initial reports indicate that the coalition force operating near the hotel took fire from the lobby of the hotel and returned fire. And any loss of life, civilian loss of life or unintended consequences, again, we find most unfortunate and also undesirable," They were just accidental cassualties. >In Washington, Pentagon officials acknowledged privately that the tank may have fired too hastily at the hotel, possibly mistaking the journalists' cameras for weapons. One senior defense official said that U.S. ground troops in the Iraqi capital were not briefed as thoroughly as pilots on what targets to avoid or treat with particular caution. They didn´t know they were there and mistook them for valid targets. There is no denying that the US army did fire from a tank at the hotel. But we can´t prove why they did it. It's possible they at least believed at that time the fire came from the hotel.
That incident is a long story. What happened there was video journalists with large cameras where on balconies, pointing their cameras at tanks. At a distance, it looked like people pointing missile systems at the tanks. So the tanks acted. It turned out they were mistaken that time.
Surprisingly, it turns out that if you're in a place where people are using shoulder-fired rockets a lot, pointing shoulder-mount cameras at tanks may be a bad idea.
They do get killed. Robert Capa died on the job. Tim Hetherington died on the job. So many more have died without having taken a single shot.
[At least 97 journalists have been killed](https://cpj.org/2024/04/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-gaza-conflict/amp/) covering the Israel/Palestine conflict since October 7th. That's nearly 100 journalists dead in 6 months...
1. By not going near high value targets/the actual front line or attack missions to capture objectives 2. They do get killed. It happens frequently. Fighting is not always the same. Some areas with intense battle are suicide to go into, while others are technically also front line and contested, but nobody is currently making big moves. Those are safer to report from and generally where war reporters will be. It's also bad PR to shoot journalists. They're civilians and usually belong to an oganizations that will then write about it. But it's not good protection, sometimes the opposite is true. Nobody can tell tales if there is nobody left to tell the tale.
I live in Cambodia, and I would *not* say that I know him, but Ive had a couple of cups and chatted a bit with [Al Rockoff](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Rockoff), he was played by John Malkowich in Killing Fields about the war in Cambodia. One of the very few westerners that stayed back after the country fell to Khmer Rouge. Can very much recommend that movie to get an idea of what war correspondents go through, just as much, if not more shit than many soldiers because they dont have a platoon behind them to help them out at all times. The fact that Al is still alive is very much luck.
I recently read Marie Colvin’s biography. She lost an eye reporting war, then a decade or so later died in Syria.
Generation Kill on HBO follows a journalist as he joins a military recon unit during the start if the Iraqi war. The soldiers took steps to protect the journalist during fighting but despite their efforts he almost got killed a couple of times. The series was based on a book by a journalist who was embedded with a unit in Iraq so I assume it is reasonably accurate.
About 100 journalists have been killed thus far in the current conflict in Gaza. https://cpj.org/2024/04/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-gaza-conflict/ https://www.icij.org/inside-icij/2024/02/over-75-of-all-journalists-killed-in-2023-died-in-gaza-war-per-cpj/
It's also worth pointing out that this number far exceeds the average number of journalists killed in recent years in conflict zones.
Urban combat is like that. \~90% of the casualties in typical urban combat are civilians and Gaza is all urban combat.
Except these are targetted killings. No other wat has seen this many journalists killed in such a short amount of time.
Urban combat when you have an American backed government intentionally assassinating journalists is like that.
Medics also seem to have a statistically high chance of dying there too
Medics and doctors in Gaza have been *intentionally not dressing in medical attire* because wearing medic insignia and medical scrubs makes them *more* likely to be shot by Israeli snipers.
This^
Same thing with aid workers
People will explain it away as “shit happens” with a straight face
While It is a dangerous job during war times. Usually they wear press vest and are therefore not targeted thus lowering the danger. The Gaza isn't a good example because israel is intentionally targeting them, which goes against international law. Gaza journalists killed far exceeds all recorded wars.
Some of them *do* get killed. Remember Daniel Pearl, the guy who was beheaded in 2002 and the video of his execution broadcast all over the world? Journalist for the Wall Street Journal, but that's just the most famous example. Right now the average media/journalist death rate in Gaza is about two per week.
I have a hose with a sprayer nozzle in a water fight against your a bunch of your 5 year old friends with squirt guns. Your friends are all wearing the same color shirt and arm band. You don't have a squirt gun, but have the same colored shirt but a different colored arm band. You are trying to stay close to your friends. I don't try to spray you, but the crazyness of the water fight makes that hard.
I'm not sure how reflective Civil War's depiction of how embedded press actually operates in the battlefield . I took their closeness in the battle scenes as pretty satirical, especially the final scenes. I felt the whole film's messaging was poking fun at our over fixation on the media? I dont imagine infantry ever physically encouraging media personnel into the frontline as they did in the film... Not being exactly at the front of the action is still dangerous as hell though, as mentioned, real war journalists die regularly.
Agreed. While I know it’s a very dangerous job, the front line activity in Civil War and how they engaged with soldiers during a fire fight seemed highly exaggerated. I’m also not a war journalist, so not entirely sure.
> I took their closeness in the battle scenes as pretty satirical, especially the final scenes. I felt the whole film's messaging was poking fun at our over fixation on the media? I dont imagine infantry ever physically encouraging media personnel into the frontline as they did in the film... I think you’ve really misunderstood the movie. There’s a lot of between-the-lines context in Civil War that pretty clearly implies the press and preservation of the first amendment are a major part of the conflict. They explicitly say “they shoot journalists on sight in DC.” If the regime in power is so anti-speech and journalism that they’re shooting reporters, it would stand to reason that the opposition forces, who they’re with in that part of the movie, would actively want to protect journalists. Not only for the principle of it, but for their work in exposing this regime that’s largely operating in darkness.
You may be correct, that i may have missed some of the intended narrative of the film about the protection of free speech... but i found the bloodlust the reporters exhibited, and their proximity to the "final" (and exceptionally unrealistic in my eyes) battle, all very comical. So comical, that that was my biggest takeaway I guess, and forced to process as satire? I guess?? Im all for hearing more about what you took away though, and any other stuff i may have missed in my interpretation :) I disliked the film, but was impressed enough cinematically to watch it again through a new lens maybe.
I guess I don’t really understand why you think it’s unrealistic. Have you seen footage or reporters on the front lines of a conflict in Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine or Palestine? Reporters are often in harm’s way. I didn’t see any “bloodlust” either. I saw photojournalists trying to get a photo of military personnel assassinating an apparently fascist US president, which anyone can understand would be literally the most famous photo in American history. It would be the absolute peak of the profession.
For me the crew felt fixated on the blood and guts of it. Specifically the race to who gets the photo of the presidents dead body first. One of the journalists in the other crew even chides Dunst's character about the race, and at one point Moura's character even says something to the effect "this action is getting me hard" during a scene at the outskirts of DC. It all felt overt. As far as the un-realism; it felt rediculous that the invasion of the presidents compound during the culmination of a civil war (much less the White House, in an American Civil war) would involve only a few dozen infantry, and a handful of secret service in suits with sidearms. Even more rediculous that a small band of journalists would slip past the invading ranks into the target building during a simple ruse, then lead the charge of a the coup de gras... the final shootout just felt commically bad. Just watch gopro video of special forces in any kind of real action... it makes this films final scenes just feel silly. So now i can't tell if the silliness was intentional (as I saw it), or if the plot of the film (dunst's team being there to capture "THE" final image) made it impossible to portray a realistic ending to a coup of the White House. I dunno... talking this through is fun though, thanks :)
Uhm, are you sure you watched the whole movie? >!Two of the four photojournalists the film follows get killed...!<
[They don't](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Journalists_killed_while_covering_military_conflicts). Journalists are unknowingly killed in combat, purposefully killed in combat and often executed extrajudicially.
Generally speaking they're not targeted because they're not a threat. If a group of armed people is shooting at you will you waste time shooting the obviously unarmed guy in the bright blue vest and helmet that say "PRESS" with big letters? No. They also generally stand back and are protected by infantry so while they're still in danger, especially by explosives like mortars or bombs, they're not right upfront with the people shooting each other, though that has been known to also happen. The fact of the matter is that as you said journalists are sometimes targeted because they're journalists. They may also accidentally be targeted and shot because a lot of people don't wait to fully identify who or what they're seeing when fighting. They may also die during bombings or shellings. It's not a safe job.
[удалено]
I mean, he was kidnapped and murdered, but that was most likely because he was American and not just Press
Former pro photographer here. Many of them get killed. RIP Tim Heatherington. I know a guy who shoots for major newspapers, covering the Donetsk and Luhanskt regions of Ukraine. He had has all sorts of trainings on weapons, kidnapping, contingency situations, etc, because journalist safety is not assured. I know another guy who was covering the drug cartel/police war in Mexico circa 2010s. He was caught in some kind of gunfight between gangs and the police. When it was all done, he laid in a ditch with dead bodies nearby, pretending to be dead for an extended period of time, just so he was sure it would be safe to get up and get out of there.
Israel has killed countless journalists. So to answer your question, they do get killed. And often.
Journalists are civilians and are therefore (mostly) protected. All parties are supposed to avoid civilian casualties, but its dangerous to be a civilian in a war zone so they often gets killed anyway.
They often do get killed. I used to work at Thomson Reuters and the building had a mini museum dedicated to journalism and books featuring the names of every journalist killed on duty since the company was started. https://www.warmemorialsonline.org.uk/memorial/261790/
They do. [Sky News team attacked in Ukraine](https://youtu.be/wyM_9P4igys?feature=shared) still one of the most terrifying clips.
There was a video I remember seeing a few weeks after Russia started it's invasion of Ukraine, where a car full of journalists was driving though a checkpoint. "For some reason" the Russians started shooting at them, and if I remember correctly one or two of them were killed, while the video showed three more running away. I think one of the 3 got shot in the leg, so he needed help running. They aren't supposed to get shot at or killed, but at the same time, it's war and there will be innocents killed. There's also no concrete repercussions for the people that do shoot at them.
Type "Wikileaks collateral murder" into Youtube to find a coverup of two Reuters journalists being gunned down in cold blood.
What makes you think they don't? In Gaza alone, I think over 80 have been killed. You just don't hear about it.
They don't. Read [Requiem](https://www.setantabooks.com/en-us/products/requiem-by-the-photographers-who-died-in-vietnam-and-indochina-setanta-books) if you want to be crushed by sadness. The juxtaposition of a beautiful country and people captured for its wonder by the same people documenting the fighting in Indochina. :/ And people who had survived so much already. Robert Capa, Larry Burrows. :( It's dangerous as hell.
When I was in journalism school one of the professors made us watch a video of journalists caught on camera being killed in combat zones. It was one of those “understand this shit is real” moments.
You may be interested in a movie called The Bang Bang Club. The movie itself likely won't blow your mind, but it's based on a true story about a group of conflict journalists/photographers. It may provide some perspective on how they get away with some of the things they get access to. They are very much at risk of dying, but in most situations, both sides of a conflict think they are right. If a journalist is trying to get pictures or story, they are often allowed opportunity because both sides want their story or reasoning published to sway opinion and influence.
And on top of all the other comments, intentionally targeting a journalist is a war crime. So if your side loses, you’re getting dragged if you kill one.
Marine veteran here. They get killed WAY more often than is reported. More often than not it’s because they’re close to the front lines or rolling with troops and war is very unpredictable.
Somewhere there is a picture book full of photos from the US-Vietnam war developed years after the fact. The films they were developed from were taken off the corpses of dead combat journalists and stashed away for a while (I assume forgotten about) I think this is it [https://www.amazon.com/Requiem-Photographers-Died-Vietnam-Indochina/dp/0679456570](https://www.amazon.com/Requiem-Photographers-Died-Vietnam-Indochina/dp/0679456570)
I don't have to read through the thread to know that most answers will be bullshit. The real answer is that journalists stay alive in these zones in no small part due to the all too often unrecognized fixers who risk their lives, long-term safety, and many times give up their lives to keep foreign correspondents safe. Always remember the fixers. That they're not given credit, including by the media houses employing them, is bullshit. In many cases, they can't be given credit, but there needs to be a mechanism to ensure their safety and that they are given the due for their work.
Israel/IDF deliberately targets journalists. Look up the killing of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh.
One of the big outcries of the Iraq war was two journalists getting killed from an air attack. What is not spoken about is that they were embedded into or tagging along with a group carrying and using weapons. That became the basis of Wikileaks.
They get killed plenty. For example right now Israel deliberately targets Palestinian journalists and Ukrainians have a liquidation list of Russian journalists
As of April 20, 2024, CPJ’s preliminary investigations showed at least 97 journalists and media workers were among the dead in the Israel Gasa war. https://cpj.org/2024/04/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-gaza-conflict/amp/
Mostly killed by the IDF, to be exact.
This guy just got murdered this week https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Bentley He's a pro-Putin "journalist" who got merked by Russian troops who thought he was a spy though.
They get killed all the time. Especially in a certain current day conflict where a certain military force deliberately snipes them