Are journalists legitimate targets in wars?

[Delta4Embassy]

I assume they're protected, but as I think of biased news coverage on Gaza, if the old adage "loose lips sink ships" is still true, then isn't pro-Gazan/Hamas reporting a kind of propaganda? We went after propagandists in WWII like Tokyo Rose and the Nazi guys. How is that different from what goes on now?

If pro-Hamas reporters are giving aide and comfort to Hamas terrorists or otherwise aiding the enemy are they still 'no-shoot?'

 

[Daniyel]

Of course its not, all the photographers and journalists are pretty much the same Palestinians just holding a camera and a vest write on it "PRESS", it can be any press agency that hire local Pals, and they provide them what they want-action.

 

[Coyote]

I assume they're protected, but as I think of biased news coverage on Gaza, if the old adage "loose lips sink ships" is still true, then isn't pro-Gazan/Hamas reporting a kind of propaganda? We went after propagandists in WWII like Tokyo Rose and the Nazi guys. How is that different from what goes on now?

If pro-Hamas reporters are giving aide and comfort to Hamas terrorists or otherwise aiding the enemy are they still 'no-shoot?'

And who makes that determination? Who determines whether it's news or propaganda or what is "truth"? Are pro-Israel reporters legitimate targets?

Once you determine that journalists are legitimate targets then what about emergency officials, aid workers, etc who "give aid and comfort" by their medical services?

Where do you draw a line at targets?

 

[fanger]

I think Israel has shown us the line, in the coming war on Israel, Hospitals are a fair target, as are schools, homes for the disabled, public parks and the homes of Politicians, oh and Ambulances too

 

[docmauser1]

I think Israel has shown us the line, in the coming war on Israel, Hospitals are a fair target, as are schools, homes for the disabled, public parks and the homes of Politicians, oh and Ambulances too

Just what hamass has been doing all along, of course. That palistanian infatuation with excuses is most ridiculous.

 

[Freeman]

There are more than 12 journalists killed by zionist troops.

Journalists Killed in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory - Committee to Protect Journalists

 

[docmauser1]

I assume they're protected, but as I think of biased news coverage on Gaza, if the old adage "loose lips sink ships" is still true, then isn't pro-Gazan/Hamas reporting a kind of propaganda? We went after propagandists in WWII like Tokyo Rose and the Nazi guys. How is that different from what goes on now? If pro-Hamas reporters are giving aide and comfort to Hamas terrorists or otherwise aiding the enemy are they still 'no-shoot?'

And who makes that determination? Who determines whether it's news or propaganda or what is "truth"? Are pro-Israel reporters legitimate targets? Once you determine that journalists are legitimate targets then what about emergency officials, aid workers, etc who "give aid and comfort" by their medical services? Where do you draw a line at targets?

War development determines and corrects everything, of course. Bth., cool questions for lounge bloviations of intellectuals, floating up there in the clouds.

 

[Coyote]

I assume they're protected, but as I think of biased news coverage on Gaza, if the old adage "loose lips sink ships" is still true, then isn't pro-Gazan/Hamas reporting a kind of propaganda? We went after propagandists in WWII like Tokyo Rose and the Nazi guys. How is that different from what goes on now? If pro-Hamas reporters are giving aide and comfort to Hamas terrorists or otherwise aiding the enemy are they still 'no-shoot?'

And who makes that determination? Who determines whether it's news or propaganda or what is "truth"? Are pro-Israel reporters legitimate targets? Once you determine that journalists are legitimate targets then what about emergency officials, aid workers, etc who "give aid and comfort" by their medical services? Where do you draw a line at targets?

War development determines and corrects everything, of course. Bth., cool questions for lounge bloviations of intellectuals, floating up there in the clouds.

Well come down to earth then and stop bloviating. You've done a good job legitimizing the actions of terrorists.

 

[docmauser1]

There are more than 12 journalists killed by zionist troops.

See, occupational hazards aren't empty words in the occupational safety business. Doh!

 

[docmauser1]

And who makes that determination? Who determines whether it's news or propaganda or what is "truth"? Are pro-Israel reporters legitimate targets? Once you determine that journalists are legitimate targets then what about emergency officials, aid workers, etc who "give aid and comfort" by their medical services? Where do you draw a line at targets?

War development determines and corrects everything, of course. Bth., cool questions for lounge bloviations of intellectuals, floating up there in the clouds.

Well come down to earth then and stop bloviating.

Did me ask those cool questions?

You've done a good job legitimizing the actions of terrorists.

How so?

 

[hjmick]

Are journalists legitimate targets in wars?

No, but there are risks inherent when in a war zone...

 

[Coyote]

War development determines and corrects everything, of course. Bth., cool questions for lounge bloviations of intellectuals, floating up there in the clouds.

Well come down to earth then and stop bloviating.

Did me ask those cool questions?

mmmh...not sure what you are saying.

If you are asking "did I ask you those cool questions" then the answer is simple. Look to the post. Was I talking to you? No.

You've done a good job legitimizing the actions of terrorists.

How so?

Easy. You've essentially said "anything goes" in war.

 

[Coyote]

Are journalists legitimate targets in wars?

No, but there are risks inherent when in a war zone...

yes..there are always risks in a war zone and journalists and medics are often the unsung heros.

 

[teddyearp]

I would have to disagree with this thread. Some of the journalists are already under enough pressure from Hamas for what they report.

 

[Coyote]

Teddy, I think they are under pressure from both sides.

The thing is - we need to be able to hear all sides.

None should be "targets".

 

[teddyearp]

Teddy, I think they are under pressure from both sides.

The thing is - we need to be able to hear all sides.

None should be "targets".

Bold part, totally agreed. And there is pressure from both sides regarding the reporting.

We are hearing from both sides. The difference is this. Those reporting from the Israel side do seem to be at a disadvantage in so much as the IDF really doesn't like their pictures taken too much. I found this out when I thought about trying to visit Israel via this:

Sar-El

However, some of those that are reporting from Gaza have reported this:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/israe...ournalists-are-being-threatened-by-hamas.html

You can draw your own conclusions. I draw the one that means this:

If you favor Hamas and their propaganda, then you have no censure. If you report Hamas using civilian buildings for rocket launches, then you do so at your own risk; or even personal peril.

NEXT?

 

[docmauser1]

Well come down to earth then and stop bloviating.

Did me ask those cool questions?

mmmh...not sure what you are saying.

Maybe.

If you are asking "did I ask you those cool questions" then the answer is simple. Look to the post. Was I talking to you? No.

And of course me was not asking that.

You've done a good job legitimizing the actions of terrorists.

How so?

Easy. You've essentially said "anything goes" in war.

Ah, an essentially creative interpretation. Remember, the original is "War development determines and corrects everything, of course.".

 

[Two Thumbs]

I assume they're protected, but as I think of biased news coverage on Gaza, if the old adage "loose lips sink ships" is still true, then isn't pro-Gazan/Hamas reporting a kind of propaganda? We went after propagandists in WWII like Tokyo Rose and the Nazi guys. How is that different from what goes on now?

If pro-Hamas reporters are giving aide and comfort to Hamas terrorists or otherwise aiding the enemy are they still 'no-shoot?'

If the US Pres can kill an innocent US minor, then yea, everyone is fair game

 

[aris2chat]

Journalists do not have a bull-eye pained on their vests, but they do take responsibility for their own lives if they get too close to an active zone.
Journalist are not to be used as shields either.
They are supposed to watch the action, not become a part of it. Rockets and artillery do not have a self destruct if they get too close to a "press" vest.
Journalists get killed trying to get their story. They wear vests and helmets for a reason, but these do not prevent being killed.

My cousin used to cover African conflicts but she was smart enough to capture what was happening from a safe enough distance.

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

No matter what makes sense, there is the law covering Journalist.

Rule 34.

Civilian journalists engaged in professional missions in areas of armed conflict must be respected and protected as long as they are not taking a direct part in hostilities.​

SOURCE: Customary IHL Rule 34 ICRC

(COMMENT)

The basic rule is pretty straight forward.

Most Respectfully,
R