The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.
Armed
: The Wall Street Journal asks: Should war reporters be armed?
What do folk from ABC (the US version) say that the A stands for when they’re talking to non-Americans? Do the NBC folks deny that N ever stood for “National” as in a reference to the US?
Yes, reporters should carry guns. And, they should tell their audiences before hand if they’re going to call for help if things go wrong.
There are inherent problems posed with the arming of news reporters, journalists and photographers.
While it is only natural to expect everyone in a combat arena to be armed, at least for self protection, the news person and his/her colleauges are there to represent the people of the world as chroniclers of events. As such, they are afforded, by international law, certain protections as non-combatants. Of course no one can guarantee these protections on a battlefield.
Arming these people technically makes them armed combatants and subject to the same regard as any other enemy soldier. I may be wrong, but I don’t believe the majority of the news people would favor arming themselves for this reason.
Neutral status does not negate their being captured and held prisoner. They, however, should be treated as their status requires – not combatant news media personnel who are on the war front as chroniclers of events who have gone to the areas of armed conflict completely aware of the danger to themselves and do not personally represent themselves as combatants.
A side arm, I suppose, is what is proposed, but I believe this would not pose an overall benefit for these people, as they normally travel under the armed protection of a military unit. Any freelancer is on his/her own and, I guess, understands the danger and will do whatever he/she feels appropriate to them.
You have an open b-tag there, dude.
Daniel:
I’m sorry, but your message to me is like an encryption. The only thing I got was the “dude” reference.
If you would, please clarify – pro or con.
> Arming these people technically makes them armed combatants and subject to the same regard as any other enemy soldier.
That’s hard to believe. The laws of war date from a time when ordinary people typically had guns and weapons. Even today, soldiers aren’t necessarily well-behaved towards non-combatants, so effective self-defense is a good idea.
More to the point, does anyone outside the media actually believe that they’re considered “outsiders”? Yes, “the enemy” tends not to shoot them absent a good and specific reason, but that’s because shooting them is bad press, and modern war requires press managment.
> the news person and his/her colleauges are there to represent the people of the world as chroniclers of events.
Bull. They’re there to gather material to sell fish-wrap.
The actual chronicles have always been written by participants and there’s no reason to think that that’s going to change any time soon.
Yes! Wait, no. Hmm. Maybe I was wrong. Yes!
Oh, it’s so hard to decide.
Marcel:
I think Daniel was referring to the formatting of the blog. Earlier there was an open ‘bold’ tag without a close tag, which ‘bolded’ nearly the entire blog.
I don’t believe he meant to say whether he is pro or con on this particular topic.
Well, seeing as the NYT has seen fit to arm their so-called “security” thugs, they are hardly in a position to say squat. Any journalist that thinks fedayeen, plain criminals, or terrorists have any regard for a journalist’s ‘exalted status’ should have his/her head examined.
If I were the NYT I’d be less concerned about my reporters in Baghdad and arm my editorial staff here in the U.S. Considering the total disregard for the truth in their editorials they are probably in far greater jeapordy than their people in Iraq.
What gets me is how in the world can the WSJ editors let a story like this go wiout any mention of the AP’s Ross Baughman, who ad his Pulitzer yanked for carrying a sidearm in then-Rhodesia?
Is the journal writtan and edited by 19 year-olds?
oopsie, keystroke typo….
Some of these John Wayne-styled statements of rhetorical bravado do not speak to this serious question. Practically speaking, what would news reporters and their colleagues gain by carrying weapons and what could they lose?
1. Being armed qualifies them as armed combatants to anyone on the other side.
2. Side arms are only effective at less than 25 meters range; and are useless against automatic long arms and, of course, rockets and RPGs.
3. If they can’t be protected by their embedded status with friendlies, carrying weapons will have been useless.
4. No armed media person would be allowed into a conference or interview, especially with the opposition.
5. Might give them a touch of that John Wayne syndrome and place them in even more danger.
Poll people who would be affected. I would like to see the responses of people who represent the spectrum of the war front media – Geraldo Rivera to Christiane Amanpour.
> Practically speaking, what would news reporters and their colleagues gain by carrying weapons and what could they lose?
That is the right question.
> Being armed qualifies them as armed combatants to anyone on the other side.
Does the other side care whether they’re armed or not? (Considering that said other side employs suicide bombers….)
> 2. Side arms are only effective at less than 25 meters range; and are useless against automatic long arms and, of course, rockets and RPGs.
Who said that they could only carry pistols? Note that the goal of carrying a weapon is to stop the other guy from shooting at you long enough for you to do something useful. The guy with the biggest gun doesn’t automatically win.
> 4. No armed media person would be allowed into a conference or interview, especially with the opposition.
So what? They can always put down the gun for the time required.
So far, the disadvantages have been of the form “someone might get mad”. Considering that said someone is already mad, it’s probably worth having something to be able to respond to the situation with something other than “I’m from the NYT”.
Andy:
I have to presume you have never been in a real war or battle situation. Under fire, even a trained infantryman isn’t all that safe with the sophisticated weapons he has at his disposal.
The scenario you suggest is akin to the burglar or murderer coming into your house and the fact you have a weapon on the nightstand or under your pillow, you are assured of your survival. Usually, a larger, more destructive weapon is more advantageous in a real conflict. You can have the .380 or 9mm pistol, I’ll take the AK-47 or RPG any day. Furthermore, the news reporter or correspondent quite typically will be found surrounded by crowds of potential hostiles. I believe that carrying a weapon would be more provocative than useful.
The heavily burdened news team will hardly be wanting to carry weaponry heavy enough to withstand any significant assault, in addition to body armour and helmet. A gun, without these other protective aids is going to prove useless. When have you viewed on television any uniformed soldier without full combat gear in addition to a weapon?
If you still don’t buy my position, perhaps a military combat vet or an experienced law enforcement officer can set either you or I straight on this issue. I have an open mind on the subject. Do you?
One last thought from me on whether news reporters and other media persons should be armed.
I don’t know of any situation in which news media personnel were killed that being armed would have prevented.
The greatest likelihood is that one of these people would meet their fate in exactly the same way the usual military casualty occurs – from unseen sniper fire, unexpected, unknown explosive device, incoming rocket or RPG round or vehicle accident. None of these scenarios would be avoided by the carrying of arms. Relatively few people in real war actually find themselves in face to face shootouts at close range. I wouldn’t expect a news person to be more likely to, and come out victorious, to boot.
Perez assumes too much, and makes many significant errors.
For example, he wrongly assumes that reporters can’t carry a long arm (presumably because he thinks that it’s a bigger burden than it actually is). He wrongly assumes that having a long arm is useless if the opponent has an RPG. He wrongly assumes that a side arm is useless if the opponent has a long arm.
A reporter’s goal is to live to see another day. He’s not trying to turn an ambush or mount an attack – he’s merely looking for something that will help him avoid or survive. That’s why “firepower equality” is not particularly interesting.
Weapons defend by putting the attacker at risk, not by directly protecting the bearer.
> A gun, without these other protective aids is going to prove useless.
Wrong. (Those aids merely help one survive until one can do something else, like run or shoot.)
> Under fire, even a trained infantryman isn’t all that safe with the sophisticated weapons he has at his disposal.
So what? Unless Perez is going to argue that they’d be safer unarmed….
Perez position requires that the bad guys be more likely to mount successful attacks against armed reporters than unarmed ones. (Does he think that a given attack is more likely to succeed if the attacked party is armed?)
I suspect that he’s projecting. Armed folk may antogonize him, but Iraqis don’t have that phobia.
I note that both cops and soldiers have already spoken – they carry whatever they can.
Of course they should be armed. It’s not like they have a +5 NYT Shield of Bullet Deflection in their back pockets. Anybody who deliberately goes walking around in a war zone should be armed and trained in the proper use of their weapon.
Andy:
You have taken great liberty with your personal interpretation of my words.
For example: “Armed folk may antagonize him but Iraqis don’t have that phobia.”
I made no indication that arming a reporter or other media person was antagonizing to me. My position is that being essentially a psychological salve, arming a reporter doesn’t present any practical advantage, and may even be more of a disadvantage by legitimizing them as military targets; especially when you project them carrying very unconcealable weapons like long arms.
Every one of your counterpoints are misinterpretations and none of them give any justification for arming reporters except for hypothetical “what ifs” and “just in cases”.
Can you cite any reported cases in which armed reporters could have averted a casualty by being armed? Do you have a problem with my contention that there is a MUCH greater probability of being injured or killed by an unseen sniper, a detonated explosive or missile,or vehicle accident? Can you cite an example wherein a newsperson casualty could have been averted by his/her being armed?
I think you are “shooting from the hip” on this one. I haven’t heard from an authority on this question yet. I don’t claim to be that authority but you haven’t convinced me that your positions come from one either. In truth, I personally don’t have personal preference either way on this issue because I don’t have to face the issue, myself. I’m arguing against a blind assertion that arming a reporter will make any real difference in increasing his survivability in a combat arena; and may actually make him/her less likely to be treated as a noncombatant as directed by international codes of legitimate warfare. This, despite the contention of some that these codes are useless, because the enemy never respects them.
I openly invite more authoratative comment on this issue.
having a sidearm helps avoid the daniel pearl situation and it gets you a chance of getting out of a hostile situation.
just like in a fight, where kicking one guy in the groin gives you a half decent chance of running from the rest of them, shooting one guy in the face is likely to send the rest of the group or the crowd scurrying long enough to get the hell out of dodge!
perez goes against being armed cause it doesn’t protect against snipers, etc.. well no, but it don’t hurt either
in an ambush situation, firing back “anything” can get the other side to duck and cover. hell throwing tennis balls can help. you don’t need to start picking people off (though it helps) you just need to make them be afraid (at least a bit).
a sidearm (especially a nice big ass .45) will do that effectively. you’re not expecting to shoot all of the other guys, you’re expecting to make the other guy take cover while you get the hell out. NYT and CNN don’t carry guns, they carry gunmen! cnn got through some dangerous situations because they were carrying a number of gunmen (not us soldiers, locals) as security who shot them through a roadblock/ambush with heavy weapons.
reporters should carry rifles and more in their trucks, while always having 2 sidearms on their person at all times (1 big one that is easily accessible, 1 small one that is very concealed)
and if you’re embedded, learn how to operate whatever is at hand (really, even if you’re with the arty boys). the only exception is when you’re embedded with a carrier or with the boys with strategic weapons. and even then… while it may make them nervous, you should try to be useful in an emergency. and always, always, always, be extremely knowledgeable in first aid and emergency response (fire fighting, what to drag away from fire, what should be destroyed if about to be captured). this will a) help protect your country and b) make those around you more likely to be willing to save your ass when you get in trouble (letting the reporter get what he had coming is always a temptation for the troops, and rightfully so)
> My position is that being essentially a psychological salve, arming a reporter doesn’t present any practical advantage,
The ability to stop an attacker in some circumstances isn’t a practical advantage?
> and may even be more of a disadvantage by legitimizing them as military targets;
“has gun” isn’t “military target”, especially not in Iraq where everyone has guns.
> especially when you project them carrying very unconcealable weapons like long arms.
Interestingly enough, long guns are quite concealable in many important circumstances. Then again, you’d have to think through carrying to realize this.
> I haven’t heard from an authority on this question yet.
Said authorities are carrying. What else does Perez need to hear?
> may actually make him/her less likely to be treated as a noncombatant as directed by international codes of legitimate warfare. This, despite the contention of some that these codes are useless, because the enemy never respects them.
Unless Perez is going to argue that the enemy does respect them, the contention stands.
And, interestingly enough, he’s wrong – carrying guns doesn’t imply combatant status, so if they do respect the codes, carrying doesn’t have the consequence that Perez’ argument requires. (The US, which does respect the codes, does not treat all armed folks as combatants.)
Does Perez have any evidence that carrying arms actually provokes the bad guys, that the bad guys are more likely to attack armed reporters than unarmed ones?
Note that armed reporters are likely to be able to cover stories that unarmed ones aren’t. That seems valuable.
You are basically describing an infantryman, not a reporter. You had to be writing your piece with a lot of tough in cheek. You don’t seriously think that news reporters are going to go to army basic training, do you?
You mentioned that news crews were escorted and protected by armed bodyguards. Well, that’s exactly how they should be protected; but I don’t think that these bodyguards would expect their client to be part of the shooting team except as a last resort, and then you’re still talking about a person untrained in emergency response or in handling weapons effectively. The
“duck for cover” or “duck, run for cover” will be the order given their client. Remember, most of these news reporters do not travel on their own, 2 guys in a car on their own to go wherever they please. Anyone trying to do this is asking for trouble that a personal weapon will not save him from. Don’t forget that the opposition has the home field advantage outside the areas firmly held by our side, and are capable of striking from anywhere, at anytime. This will often be executed with explosives, remotely triggered, or by imbedded explosives triggered by direct weight contact. There will not be any showdown on main street, as in TV westerns. War is conducted through stealth and surprise and each side hopes his man and fire power will win the day.
In the end, whether or not reporters are allowed to or are required to carry personal weapons will be of consequence only to them. Just hope they use them judiciously or are not required to use them at all. Don’t expect any Geraldo Riveras to be wandering around on his own in this war, or any other in the future.
I really don’t understand the last part of your comments about reporters “getting what they had coming”. Is there something they do that makes you think that their embedded unit would want to desert or harm them?
You guys have been watching too much TV. A reporter is not going to be allowed to pull out his weapon unless directed to by some military person with authority; and for the same reason military people take their handling of weapons so seriously – for safety of everyone. Are you aware that many military personnel, over a protracted war, are shot and wounded or killed by themselves or other friendlies by mistake or accident?
I still hear shades of “Cops”, “Third Watch” and a little “Rambo” in these comments. Your anticipated role for the news reporters would frighten them from even going.
My last comments were directed to (hey), but Andy, you are also included.
I think we have pretty much exhausted this issue. The complexity and the contentiousness of the arguements for and against show that this is not a simple matter.
As I said before, I do not really care if they do or don’t carry weapons because I expect they will do whatever they feel most comfortable with, and I’m not the one to have to make that decision, myself. I’m speaking from a military veteran’s experience and from an understanding that, because of more recent history in war, reporters are not going to be allowed the freedom of movement people like Geraldo and Peter Arnett enjoyed in the past. And I still contend that reporters carrying personal weapons will be done not out of necessity or practicality, but for psychological comfort, if anything. A word of warning, however. A civilian news reporter, or any other person in civilian status, is still responsible for civil or military charges for any misuse of his/her firearm.
> You are basically describing an infantryman, not a reporter.
I’m pretty sure that a reporter can figure out how to put a long gun in a car so that it’s both usable and not visible, even without basic training.
> You mentioned that news crews were escorted and protected by armed bodyguards.
Perez seems to find armed guards acceptable, but it’s hard to see why guards carrying makes a differrence wrt his the bad guys are more likely to attack armed reporters and armed folks are combatants, etc. argument.
> A reporter is not going to be allowed to pull out his weapon unless directed to by some military person with authority
Wrong. Said reporter going to pull it out to save himself. That is, if he has it.
The military authority isn’t at the scene AND if the MA is there, said MA is going to want folks shooting back.
> I still hear shades of “Cops”, “Third Watch” and a little “Rambo” in these comments.
That’s because Perez leads an active fantasy life, as there’s nothing in others’ comments to support it. (Interestingly enough, it’s pretty clear that he hasn’t actually watched “Cops” or “Rambo” because neither one supports his argument. Rambo in particular – it’s a movie about a guy who was harassed, and harassed, and harassed by an oppressive/evil authority, and finally replies in kind. It’s not surprising that Perez doesn’t know what he’s talking about here – it’s merely consistent.)
> from an understanding that, because of more recent history in war, reporters are not going to be allowed the freedom of movement people like Geraldo and Peter Arnett enjoyed in the past.
Really? Who is stopping them?
If anything, they have more freedom of movement. The question is whether they’re willing to use it.
I note that Perez ignores one of the threats to that movement which would be somewhat reduced by armed reporters (or reporters with armed guards, which are basically the same in all relevant characteristics). That threat is thieves/bandits. Reporters often have valuable equipment, and the thieves can’t use bombs/RPGs to get it.
Small arms are just the ticket, which is why the locals carry.
> A word of warning, however. A civilian news reporter, or any other person in civilian status, is still responsible for civil or military charges for any misuse of his/her firearm.
Really? That changes everything….
Andy:
I can humor you no longer. I have to take a chill-out pill after reading so much fantasy-driven drivel and continuous misrepresentation of other people’s words.
You weren’t even courteous enough to speak to me directly, but as some third person entity; even though you made several responses to me.
Later, Andy. Go mow the lawn.
> You weren’t even courteous enough to speak to me directly, but as some third person entity; even though you made several responses to me.
Perez should learn to read.
I wasn’t writing to him. I was writing to other people about what he wrote. In doing so, it’s important to identify the source of the material being commented upon, namely Perez.
Of course, it’s possible that he’d rather that I not discuss his ideas but instead “discuss” as he does. However, I don’t see the point of unfounded attribution of intention and motivation combined with pompous insults.
> fantasy-driven drivel
The big fantasies displayed so far are:
(1) Reporters will never be in a situation where having a gun is useful.
(2) Reporters with guns are significantly more likely to be targetted than reporters without guns.
Does Perez really think that the above misrepresents his position? Or, does he want to argue that the above is not fantasy?
Andy:
This is starting to get into looney tune time.
I had hoped you would call again as I wanted to call you out for the deceiver that you are.
I looked up the sites you have made comments in and discovered (not to my real surprise) that you are a proud subscriber to RKBA and other right wing ideology. While I don’t critcize the philosophical message implied by that, I do believe you should have made it clear that your position on “the Right to Keep and Bear Arms” was going to make you intransigent on the question at hand. You already knew your position and only pretended to be involved in a discussion- at first.
It started sounding suspicious when you kept talking, as you admit, to “other people” “who should know who Perez Is”, as if issuing some warning alert. Are you afraid I might try to disarm you. You probably keep your weapon drawn and cocked at all times “just in case”.
Anyway, I think you have subjected others to this kind of deceitful childplay. A lesson taught…A lesson learned. I’m out of the game.
> I had hoped you would call again as I wanted to call you out for the deceiver that you are.
Really? What deceit have I committed?
Yes, I’ve posted that ineffective gun laws should be repealed. Since that happens to describe the bulk of US gun law, that’s effectively a pro-RKBA position. However, the observant reader would also note that I’ve advocated trying new approaches AFTER their repeal. (They can’t/won’t be tried before repeal, for somewhat obvious reasons.)
However, the relevance of this escapes me, as it bears no relationship to the utility of guns for reporters in Iraq, let alone to the discussion.
I’ve also neglected to reveal that I like dogs, a trait shared by many bad people.
I’m at a loss to know what Perez thinks my right-wing ideology consists of. I’m pro-abortion (not pro-choice, pro-abortion). I’m for drug legalization.
> It started sounding suspicious when you kept talking, as you admit, to “other people” “who should know who Perez Is”, as if issuing some warning alert.
Clue – quotes should reflect something actually written – the second “quote” is complete fantasy.
In answer to Perez whine about refering to him in the third person in this thread, I wrote (actual quote coming up, as can be checked above) “I wasn’t writing to him. I was writing to other people about what he wrote.” which can only be interpreted as a reference to other people reading this thread.
But, hey, if I’d publically taken as brain-dead position as Perez, I might try changing the subject too.
I thought I would just let petulant little Andy have the last word as he seems to need to do. I anticipate that he will champ at the bit to one-up me on this post, but then he may think that by not getting the last post will show him to be the more adult, more mature person. I decided to make this post because I couldn’t let his insults pass, unchallenged.
I have checked out a number of his postings on a number of topics and, to no surprise, Andy has simplistic ways to correct every ill on earth. He has boiled everything down to black and white solutions – The Andy Way. Such as his 3 Point American Foreign Policy: As posted in The Right Wing News, Oct.11, 2002.
1. “If you have cool stuff, we’d like to buy it”.
2. “If you have cool stuff, we’d like to sell you
our cool stuff”.
3. “If you try to kill Americans (and yes,
everyone knows what that means) you’re dead
meat”.
He is posted so often in right wing publications that he appears almost as a poster child for their views. This, despite claims to be “pro abortion” and would “legalize drugs”. I suspect he would explain this anomoly as only a reflection of his position on gun ownership and right of self defense.
So, who is the real Andy Freeman? I propose that he is every bit the provocateur, misleader, messianic spinner of totally simplistic solutions and (as I have witnessed on many postings) willing to do to you the same scandalous thing he pulled on my naivte on this thread.
I know this person now. He is mean-spirited; hoping to disguise this behind a fascade of false intellectual offerings.
I purposely used the same impolite addressing of the “audience of the public” (my quote) to show Mr. Freeman for who he really is. If you have a different point of view from his, don’t make the mistake of thinking you and he will be “discussing” (again, my quote) anything.
If this posting gets me banned from this site, I apologize, in advance, to the host, and so be it.
> He is posted so often in right wing publications that he appears almost as a poster child for their views.
Appears to whom? Yes, I posted a couple of comments on RWN. I’ve posted more on “Armed Liberal”, Matt Welch’s “warblog”, and buzzmachine.
Note that my four point foreign policy (Perez missed one) is actually classical liberal, being free trade and strong defense. While both may not be sufficiently nuanced for Perez’ tastes, they have the simple virtue of success.
I note that Perez has yet to provide any evidence for his personal accusations wrt me, just as he failed to provide any evidence for his other positions.