The Occupational Hazards of Journalism

Karanas

New member
Maybe my ongoing irritation with members of the news media has desensitized me to anything they feel is a problem for them.
The only thing forcing them to expose themselves to danger is their own personal quest to win a Pulitzer.
Apparently, some of them have their noses out of joint because the police in Luxembourg posed as journalists in order to lure a hostage taker out into the open where they cut his interview short with two well placed bullets to the head.
Never mind the risk the police exposed themselves to.
Or the fate of the of the hostages: 25 children and 3 adults.
They're crying because the actions of the police may damage their credibility with murderous wackos in the future, thereby putting them at greater risk as they valiantly attempt to bring us dramatic footage from the latest blood dance.
Life is full of risks. If they don't like those attached to their occupation, they can always find something else to do!

http://news.excite.com/news/ap/000603/01/int-luxembourg-hostage-taking

Police Chided in Luxembourg Standoff

By CONSTANT BRAND, Associated Press Writer

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - The world's largest journalists' group has asked that Luxembourg police tactics be investigated after officers posing as a TV crew lured a gunman into an ambush to end a hostage crisis. One journalism professor, however, said he would excuse the deception because lives were saved.

When the gunman emerged for an "interview" Thursday holding a child in one arm and a grenade in the other, police posing as cameramen shot him twice in the head. That led to the rescue of 25 children and three adults held hostage for about 30 hours.

"These are disturbing tactics," cautioned Aidan White, general secretary of the Brussels-based International Federation of Journalists, which represents more than 450,000 journalists worldwide.

"Each year many journalists die reporting on incidents of violence. ... Their life is dangerous enough without adding to their difficulties," White said Friday in a statement.

Luxembourg police defended their strategy, saying it minimized the threat to the hostages. Interior Minister Michel Wolter said the hostage-taker's demand for TV airtime gave police an opportunity to get a clear shot.

Northeastern University journalism professor Nicholas Daniloff said the tactic was "a case of deception, and journalists as a whole try not to be deceptive."

And Fred Brown, chairman of the Society for Professional Journalists' Ethics Committee, agreed.

"This just adds to the sense that journalists are not always what or who they appear to be," he said.

Still, Daniloff said the situation called for extreme measures. Since the hostages were freed unharmed and the hostage-taker arrested, Daniloff said he would be inclined to forgive this case.

"This was a question of saving lives," he said. "You can argue that the results justified what was done."

Hostage-taker Neji Bejaoui, an unemployed Tunisian immigrant, was shot at the day-care center in Wasserbillig, a village of 2,300 people in eastern Luxembourg.

Bejaoui was recovering from his injuries Friday after surgery, and police said his wounds were no longer life-threatening.

Authorities released details Friday about the 39-year-old gunman who brandished a pistol, a hand grenade and a knife as he seized his hostages Wednesday.

The Luxembourg government said Bejaoui had a history of violence and was convicted of assault in 1998. He had been seeing a psychiatrist for several years. Its statement called Bejaoui "very unstable" and said he suffers from paranoia and craves attention.

The statement said Bejaoui, who lived in the nearby village of Manternach and obtained Luxembourgish nationality in 1991, was seeking to avenge a 1994 decision to deny him custody of his two children. Residents of Wasserbillig said he blamed the day-care center for the loss of custody when he and his wife separated.

Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker said police were forced to act when Bejaoui demanded to flee in a car with three children. The government said the decision to act also came after Bejaoui brought crying children to the telephone, then refused to speak to police negotiators.

Police then sent in the two officers disguised as journalists with Radio Television Luxembourg. Col. Pierre Reuland of the Luxembourg police said the force requisitioned cameras and other equipment from RTL.

He refused to comment on reports police had used a gun hidden in a camera, but RTL Station Manager Vic Reuter said the camera was returned with no damage.

"We got a legal request, so we had no opportunity to refuse it," Reuter told The Associated Press. "They wouldn't tell us what it was for. We discovered the use just like the rest of the journalists, only after it had happened."

Reuter said he had mixed feelings about the operation.

"Of course we are happy we could contribute (to the rescue). On the other hand, we are journalists and are conscious of the fact this might have consequences," he said.

Bejaoui seized 37 children and the three teachers Wednesday at the Sparrow's Nest center. He released eight children that day and then demanded a flight to take him to Libya. He freed two toddlers Thursday morning and two more around noon, leaving three adults and 25 children aged 2 to 11 as hostages.
 
I have a solution. Next time send in 25 real journalist in EXCHANGE for the kids being held hostage. Then they can get their interviews and the cops can tell the terrorist they don't care what he does. :) :)

sgtar15
 
"... and journalists as a whole try not to be deceptive."

The good professor apparently hasn't been keeping up with American media ... ;)

Regards from AZ
 
So this dickweed Aidan White adocates fair play for hostage takers? I wonder how he'd feel if it was his kids in there? I think it was clever police work myself.

"Professional Journalists' Ethics Committee" - that's as funny as the "Senate Ethics Committee". I like "Reporters" much better, i.e. those who just report the facts. These idiot 'journalists' seem to feel the need to 'interpret' the situation, often missing the facts (or just using the ones that fit their agenda). Yeah, gimme a reporter anytime, I can make up my own mind thanks if I have all the facts.

My compliments, too, to the good sgt.

M2
 
I don't understand this. I thought journalists were for anything that was "for the children." Surely, the International Federation of Journalists can't mean that they'd make an exception for something just because it'd affect the lives of its members! Journalistic elitists? Media hypocrites? Double standards? No way! :rolleyes:
 
Well, I resent this. All journalists are not the same. We're not all Jeraldo Rivera. There are plenty of us out there with integrity that bust our asses to get our job done. Do you know what would happen if there was NO media? That scares me just as bad as not having the right to own a gun. It's really easy to be an armchair quarterback unless you've actually done the job.
Have you ever ran into combat armed with a Nikon?
Have you ever gone undercover to expose a drug cartel with no cops or feds to back you up?
Have you ever risked your life to expose a corrupt government?
Have you ever gone to court to protect a source and the first amendment knowing you're right and knowing full well that you're going to jail anyway?
I didn't think so.
99% of journalists are motivated by a sense of duty to the public. We put up with a lot of crap, work hours similar to ER doctors and we don't get payed JACK!

[This message has been edited by tackdriver (edited June 05, 2000).]
 
To all the journalists out there who are upset about this. WERE ANY LAWS BROKEN BY THIS ACTION AND WERE NOT INNOCENT LIVES SAVED? WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR COMPLAINT?
Could it be the fact that you feel that the cloak of invulnerbility that you precevied yourselves as having via your press credentials is somehow damaged?

SO WHAT!

I've seen more people hurt trying to protect you from yourselves because your LUST for the Big Story clouded your judgement and you cried foul when were protected.
In the United States Of America your rights are protected, but nowhere else in the world do you enjoy that same protection. You only get close to the bad guy when it is percieved to be to their benefit and then whether you like it or not, YOU make their position stronger. Most of these terorists (because no matter what anyone thinks, that's exactly what they are) would never commit these acts without YOUR assistance. Glorification of these acts instead of simple objective reporting guarantees the perpetuation of these crimes (can you say copycat).

Get over yourselves and report the facts, hence the title reporter, instead of creating a story.

Rember, Reporter, not Short Story Author.
 
And how do we get the facts, rocket scientist?
Actually, I was reacting to the offer to sacrifice journalists and the general hate. And there is no distinction between a journalist and a reporter except that your definition infers that a reporter should be a tool of official PR people and not directly observe.

[This message has been edited by tackdriver (edited June 05, 2000).]
 
Tackdriver, I think the disdain for reporters you see stems from those that want to "create" news rather than report it. Many news agencies, NOT reporters like youself, delibrately use unneeded sensationalism to do that. The large news agencies have became nothing more than big budgeted televised National Enquirers.

------------------
Gunslinger TFL Imperial Potentate

TFL End of Summer Meet, August 12th & 13th, 2000
 
Gunslinger,

My point exactly only better phrased. I never ment to imply that all journalists were corrupt in their behavior. But it must be admitted that the most visiable of them appear to be.
I.E., Dan Rather reporting about the lowly concerned NJ housewife's organizing of the MMM and neglecting to mention the fact that she was one of HIS Staffers on leave from her job.
Enough said.
 
Shortly after the military rescue of American students in Grenada, Cap Weinberger was at a live press conference. A replay was never aired, as far as I know, for reasons which will become obvious. A "journalist" asked Weinberger (I'm paraphrasing here)

"Sir, American journalists have a long tradition of following American troops into combat. Journalists were in the trenches with the doughboys in France. We went ashore with the troops at Normandy on D-Day. Ernie Pyle was killed in action in WWII, on the front lines with the troops in the Pacific. Why, sir, with the long tradition of following American troops into battle, why was the press cut out of this Grenada operation?"

There was a short pause, after which Weinberger replied, in the most matter-of-fact tone imaginable:

"In those days, you were on OUR side."

Amen.
 
Like every profession, they's good ones and bad ones. I had an uncle who spent 444 days as a 'guest' of the Iranian gov't in the late '70's. I could go on at great length about the weeks of crap and harassment my and aunt and the rest of the family had to put up with from the booger-eating-moron segment of the profession who didn't seem to grasp what "no comment" or "get off my property" means. Calls to the papaers and TV stations for privacy were ignored.

Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for the good and courageous ones who pursue teh truth, but like lawyers, it's the crappy 90% (particularly the TV droids) that give the rest a bad name.
M2
 
Hank B,
Excellent story. I think most of us have respect for the real journalist who attempt to cover a story objectively; however, those journalist are becoming a rare breed. So many of the "talking heads" one sees in the media these days appear to be trying to create a sensational story where sensation does not exist. Not every story is a Watergate. Worse yet are the national media figures who are obviously using the position of journalist to push a political agenda. Is it any wonder the public distrusts the media?
 
"Have you ever ran into combat armed with a Nikon?
Have you ever gone undercover to expose a drug cartel with no cops or feds to back you up?
Have you ever risked your life to expose a corrupt government?
Have you ever gone to court to protect a source and the first amendment knowing you're right and knowing full well that you're going to jail anyway?"

No, I have not.
The point was not whether or not efforts like this are worthy of our appreciation. Only that no journalist is being forced to put himself in harms way. That is a decision made by the individual. Whether it is in the noble pursuit of truth or simply the selfish desire for self advancement is unimportant in this context.
The police had a job to do here as well. In this case, rescue the hostages.The possible future consequences of posing as journalists to lure the hostage taker into the open shouldn't become a tactical consideration.
If the hostage taker had demanded that pizzas be delivered to him and the police had impersonated a Domino's deliveryman to gain access, would pizzeria employees have justification to be indignant? Seriously, their job can be dangerous too. They don't need some wacko armed to the teeth wondering if they're an undercover cop when all they're trying to do is deliver a large pepperoni pizza.
There are no guarantees in life. Regardless of the tactics used by the police in this case, any journalist who decides to expose himself to physical danger believing that their professional integrity is somehow protecting them is delusional. As long as journalists choose to be the vehicle that grants madmen, criminals and terrorists their 15 minutes of fame their personal safety is nothing more than a crapshoot.
If they don't like the odds, let them find another game.
 
"Bejaoui was recovering from his injuries Friday after surgery, and police said his wounds were no longer life-threatening. "

Shot in the head twice by police. Still alive. What the heck?
 
tackdriver, you're right. It is wrong of us to stereotype all journalists / media / reporters as lying hacks. There are many good ones, and I'm sure it is a tough job.

However, as they say, unfortunately you're known by the company you keep. I used to be in the retail auto business ... I was forever defending my industry, because of the bad apples that cheated customers.

Unfortunately, too many of us now view your industry as part of the problem. Instead of the 'fourth estate', now we have what looks more like the 'government-media complex' ... a hand-in-glove arrangement that too often seems to cooperate with damaging the Bill of Rights, and especially the RKBA.

In addition to my loathing of the media (especially the wire services - UP, Reuters) due to their slavish devotion to RKBA misinformation, I've also seen reporters damage people and organizations by twisting facts simply to create a story. In a recent case, the reporter knew a charity would be damaged, and the 'revelation' gave a false impression of wrong doing, but she ran the story anyway because it could gain front page status.

I value the honest media folks I meet. I wish there were more of them to go around. Best wishes to you ... we need more good people in your profession.

Regards from AZ
 
I wasn't aware that "impersonating an officer of the media" was a crime. :cool: To impersonate a videographer, all you need is a small video camera, a grip vest, and deep bags under your eyes (from travel and lack of sleep). Oh, a tattered press pass helps too.

All this from someone who works in media as well. (conservative media)

Bobbalouie
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HankB:
Shortly after the military rescue of American students in Grenada, Cap Weinberger was at a live press conference...(and asked)"why was the press cut out of this Grenada operation?"

There was a short pause, after which Weinberger replied, in the most matter-of-fact tone imaginable:

"In those days, you were on OUR side."

Amen.
[/quote]

And those fellows who are on one side or another are called propagandists or press agents. Journalists are not supposed to be on "our side." If they were the clusterflops would never get reported. (Cap was a fine one to show righteous indignation.)
Scores of reporters are killed every year around the world. Many are killed because one faction or another figures them to be agents. Sometimes they are. It won't do to have journalists everywhere believed to something other than objective reporters. The CIA has tried occasionally to have their agents adopt cover as journalists, or to recruit journalists, and this scam is usually blown as soon as possible because it would prove lethal for legitimate journalists. That said, I will add the event cited above with the children is an exceptional case and I agree that journalists, having protested, now ought to drop it. In this case the greater good was served...though it might well backfire next time somebody tries to insert a legitimate journalist ussefully into a hostage situation.
 
Back
Top