To Tell or Not to Tell
February 1, 2010 4:21pm CST
I watched part of a TV programme tonight in which some western reporters were given access to Taliban/Mujahideen fighters as they plotted an attack on some German and American troops. I left the programme as they were planting roadside bombs. I imagine that to get access the reporters had to maintain a neutral stance. However, is there a moral obligation on these people to report what they have seen to their own countries - namely the UK and the US? Even if such reporting compromises future invitations to "see" the opposing perspective. If they don't, does that make them traitors? I should caveat this discussion with the fact that I DO NOT know if they did or did not report the planned attack.
3 people like this
• Gold Coast, Australia
1 Feb 10
I would like to think that they do have a moral obligation to report this planned attacks. So were the reporters from the UK and US? But from what I have seen from a lot of the media over the years, most of them are not exactly overflowing with morals. Most of them get their kicks out of feeding their own egos by reporting the stories that will get the biggest reaction. I would hate to be in their position doing that type of work. If they do report it to their own countries then their lives would most likely be at risk if they stayed in the region. And if they leave, then they are out of a job!
8 Feb 10
I read the biography of a news photographer once which explained why he (or she, I can´t remember who it was) felt that it was more worthwhile that he stood aside and created a lasting image of atrocities to be beamed accross the world for all to see than it was for him to try and stop them. I seem to remember that he was talking about people being placed in tyres and set fire to. Whilst I could follow the logic (yes it´s important that ´the world´ gets to know in order that ´the world´ can step in ) I remember thinking that self justification on that scale is normally reserved for the mad and the bad.
8 Feb 10
Take a few shots and then wade in. I can understand how journalists feel that they have to get the message out - and there are circumstances where to intervene would cost them their lives. But generally I can't help but feel that journalists see themselves as a third group that has the right to know everything and have no need to take responsibility for what they deliver to our TV and press.
2 Feb 10
Hi p1ke,To me it is so unfair to send reprters or any other person to these counties where their is so much danger around them..risking their lives and also having to be so careful what they say incase of it getting out that it will disturb the coutry they are in at the time..there is no way I could or would want to do anything like that if I was a reporter...Hugs LoLo
2 Feb 10
Well, that really is such a difficult decision to make... But as for my own opinion, if i was the reporter, i will tell. In the very first place, the moment those terrorists gave access to those people, they also expect these people to tell what they have seen. When those terrorists gave access to those reporters, they have surely taken into consideration the possibility of these people telling what they saw, but for whatever tactical reason they have, they still allowed these people witness their activities. Another, they don't even need to tell anymore, you said you've already watched it on TV! The German and American troops must have seen it first before you did, right? What else is to be told? Their presence there is all for work, and their work is to "TELL", regardless of moral obligations... :)
1 Feb 10
Hi p1key, I feel sorry for these reporters as they have to risk their lives to go in to these countries for the sake of news, alo I imagine that they have to sign some sort of secret act before they are allowd to into places like that where the enemies fighters are, I wouldn't do it. Hugs. Tamara xxxx