Reporter Tips Off The Military Over Marines' Conduct
According to the Associated Press, "About a dozen Marines are being investigated for possible war crimes in connection with the deaths last year of 15 Iraqi civilians who were initially reported killed by a roadside bomb."
Why is Public Eye covering it? Because of this tidbit in the third paragraph of the piece: "the initial allegations of possible violations were brought to the attention of the military by a reporter in mid-February."
Unfortunately, there's no more information mentioned about the reporter's involvement, but the decision to tip off the military nonetheless raises questions about the role of a journalist in a war zone.
If he or she is there simply to report, then doesn't the reporter have an obligation to tell a story of alleged war crimes instead of simply letting the brass know about them? Or is the reporter doing the responsible thing if he or she holds a story that could inflame passions in the enemy?
It's difficult to speculate about this particular situation without more information, but this kind of story reminds us that there aren't always easy moral guidelines when it comes to war journalism. There are those who argued that it was wrong to show the photos from Abu Ghraib prison, for example, since they could in effect create terrorists. At the same time, most journalists believe that a healthy press, one that exposes the reality of a given situation, is essential to a functioning democracy. That argument is summed up in the words of Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, who argues that "sunlight is the greatest disinfectant."
Both sides have a point. I hope we eventually find out more about the back story in this case so we can weigh the reporters' conduct against his obligations as a journalist and an American.
Why is Public Eye covering it? Because of this tidbit in the third paragraph of the piece: "the initial allegations of possible violations were brought to the attention of the military by a reporter in mid-February."
Unfortunately, there's no more information mentioned about the reporter's involvement, but the decision to tip off the military nonetheless raises questions about the role of a journalist in a war zone.
If he or she is there simply to report, then doesn't the reporter have an obligation to tell a story of alleged war crimes instead of simply letting the brass know about them? Or is the reporter doing the responsible thing if he or she holds a story that could inflame passions in the enemy?
It's difficult to speculate about this particular situation without more information, but this kind of story reminds us that there aren't always easy moral guidelines when it comes to war journalism. There are those who argued that it was wrong to show the photos from Abu Ghraib prison, for example, since they could in effect create terrorists. At the same time, most journalists believe that a healthy press, one that exposes the reality of a given situation, is essential to a functioning democracy. That argument is summed up in the words of Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, who argues that "sunlight is the greatest disinfectant."
Both sides have a point. I hope we eventually find out more about the back story in this case so we can weigh the reporters' conduct against his obligations as a journalist and an American.
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
