All Blog Posts from Public Eye

Kimberly Dozier has a column up at CBSNews.com where she discusses the challenges faced by journalists in Iraq. Towards the end, she offers up some perspective:

…if we, the journalists, are sitting in hot water, the troops we cover are hopping around on Hell's coals. Even when we spend extended time with them, we face a tiny fraction of their risk.



It's even worse for their Iraqi army and police counterparts, who are getting attacked at even higher rates, with deadlier consequences.



And then you've got the Iraqi people, who never signed up for combat, but are sure seeing a lot of it. And they're not restricted to tours of duty, nor do they have a ticket out.



So yes, absolutely, journalists face awful, dangerous risks in Iraq, more so than almost anyplace else on earth right now.



But it's nothing compared to the people we cover.

That's true, for the most part. Depending on who you ask, between 79 and 101 journalists have been killed in Iraq. While it's extremely difficult to compare the percentage of journalists killed versus the percentage of military or civilians killed, it seems safer to be an American journalist in Iraq than it is to be a soldier, policeman or man on the street. There have been more than 2,200 U.S. military casualties in Iraq alone, and civilian casualties, though difficult to estimate, are thought to be in the tens of thousands.



So why do people like Bob Woodruff and Jill Carroll get so much coverage? For one thing, their stories hit close to home. As Howard Kurtz wrote today, "Every death or injury in Iraq is important, whether it's a journalist or soldier or civilian. But when you know someone, or have talked to someone, just before things take a turn for the worst, it hits home in a very personal way." Police officers are hit particularly hard when one of their own is injured, put at risk, or killed, and journalists are no different. They're more interested in the story and more diligent in their reporting.



Part of the flurry of coverage of journalists in peril also has to do with expectations. A journalist is not a soldier. War correspondents and the people who work with them know the risks they face, but they are not designated combatants. They put themselves at risk in order to perform an essential function – helping people understand the truth on the ground. When journalists are hurt or killed, it has a symbolic meaning as well as a literal consequence. Doug Vogt and Woodruff's injuries suggest that not even the truth, or our best approximation of it, remains safe.

Read full post…

Like most everyone in journalism, we're particularly saddened by the serious injuries suffered by ABC News cameraman Doug Vogt and co-anchor Bob Woodruff, who are now being treated in Germany after their convoy was attacked in Iraq yesterday. We 'll have more later, but in the meantime we wanted to point you to a few places where you can get continuing coverage.



Jim Romenesko's Poynter institute website has an excellent roundup of links to stories here. In one of the stories he links, former foreign correspondent Donatella Lorch discusses how the "danger that journalists face in Iraq is really unparalleled." Mediabistro's Morning Newsfeed also has a good roundup.



Howard Kurtz, who wrote a piece on Woodruff and co-anchor Elizabeth Vargas that appeared in yesterday's Washington Post, has a column that talks about the questions he asks journalists over and over: "Why go to places like Iraq? Why risk your life? How do you blot it out and work when danger is always lurking just around the corner?" He also mentions Bob Schieffer's praise for Woodruff's bravery on Face The Nation. "Wars are not fought on the training ground, nor can they be covered from a TV studio," said Schieffer. "They are not reality shows, they are reality. Young men and women have to fight them and correspondents have to cover them if we are to understand what they are about."

Read full post…