Gotta watch those (expletive)s, they'll get you every time.

Serious question - What would journalistic ethics suggest he do in this case? Should he have allowed himself and US troops to be killed? Should he have quietly hid and said nothing? It seems like an issue analogous to one when Constitutional rights come into conflict - based on the specifics of the case, one right may have to cede precedence to another. Unless this journalist is covering up US atrocities or actively misrepoerting what he is seeing, I'm not sure that I could criticize this man for his actions. I'm curious to hear what those with a journalistic background think.

Serious answer - he's a reporter. He reported what he saw. If ever there was a case of "the people have a right to know", this was it.

If we are going to question journalistic ethics, I suggest we start with CNN.

I really don't see this as an issue. I guess some idealist sitting behind a desk could get his panties in a twist over it... but what do I care about that pussy?

It sounds like some of the wimps that couldn't get the courage to embed are trying to get some attention. They feel like they're missing out on all the journalism flying around so they created some of their own.

He reported. They decided.

And if he hadn't said anything, he wouldn't be alive to report it!

The idea that journalists have an obligation to remain neutral regarding a conflict between a totalitarian regime, and a republic which largely guarantees liberty, is moral relativism carried to it's most noxious level. Even ignoring this, when somebody endeavors to cook your ass, there is no ethical prohibition against seeing that their ass gets cooked first.

Ask Ernie Pyle about objectivity. In WWII this was never an issue. Journalists didn't fight, but we all knew whose side they were on.

It wasn't until the PC movement and Vietnam that journalists starting picturing themselves as the fourth branch of government.

This guy did just fine. I would have been fine if he picked up a pistol and shot at them himself.

The Embedding strategy is right up at the top of brilliant long term strategies seen in this war. The DoD has bred a new generation of DoD-friendly leaders in the media. They ate the MREs, they ran the gauntlet of fire, they spotted the ******* targets.

When they write their stories and edit the stories of the staffs they will run in the future, they will not forget. Embedding was a brilliant investment in the future for the DoD.

If you read the entire article, there are other issues not included in the excerpt. First off, he wasn't in the heavily armored command vehicle he normally rode, but a thin skinned M113. One RPG and he was toast. Second was the correct conclusion that if he were to jump out of the vehicle yelling "Journalist! Journalist!" in Arabic, the Feyadeen wouldn't give an (expletive).

But the part that had me laughing my (expletive) off was this:

"That night, we all picked out places on the track to sleep. Howison and the psyops guy, ``RJ'' Pasto, slept on top, where there are a couple of flat places. The lieutenant and the driver slept inside. I took the ramp, big and flat, and worried more that the local rats or dogs would be attracted to my feet than I worried about enemy fire.

That was until I heard what sounded like incoming artillery explosions walking in. I mulled what to do about that, but hadn't come up with any good answers that also included the possibility of sleep by the time I decided it was tank fire down two different roads. I dropped off. Thus ended my first day in Baghdad."

He did the ethical thing, which happened to be the right thing. He is American (i assume) and cannot give aid and comfort to the enemy of his country. To not have revealed their position would have been tantamount to aid and comfort - just as if he had hid them in his house knowing their intent. Is hiding them (not revealing) behind their "shadows" the same? Seems like no question to me.

He just reported what he saw. In this case it was just to a smaller audience. What the receivers of the information choose to do with it is not his responsibility.

I'm a Viet Nam vet. Every soldier knows that war is hell. There is no time for objectivity, only time to do your job and try to stay alive. I think many of the embeds got an abject lesson in objectivity. Self preservation takes over when you're a target. Stripping away objectivity and subjectivity leaves only the facts to be reported. I don't think that this is a bad thing. Give us the facts, there will be plenty of time for editorializing later.

This reporter did the "right thing". When in harms way you protect those protecting you...this is a volunteer assignment in a war zone. What do you expect - room service?

What good is a dead journalist?

This is not so simple. Journalists are not supposed to be combatants. It's one thing for the reporter to do something like this in the heat of battle. It's another to basically brag about it and dare anyone to criticize him.

I'm pro-war and pro-America, and I'm glad that some reporters and editors in this generation are beginning to understand that the military defends the nation that makes their work possible.

But fedayeen aside, there *are* other hostiles in the world that distinguish between those who carry guns and those who don't. This guy has unilaterally increased the risk for every one of his colleagues, making them forward air observers or auxilliary targeters in the eyes of our enemies--and in the eyes of those who may be undecided. Bad idea.

Not only during this war or any other, but post-war. Reporters strolling through a riot in Baghdad or Mosul normally would be less of a target than U.S. or British soldiers, and thus in a better position to do their work--until now.

This is not so simple. Journalists are not supposed to be combatants. It's one thing for the reporter to do something like this in the heat of battle. It's another to basically brag about it and dare anyone to criticize him.

He's doing his job, reporting. I'm all for honesty.

Before, he was reporting and trying to stay alive.

This guy has unilaterally increased the risk for every one of his colleagues, making them forward air observers or auxilliary targeters in the eyes of our enemies--and in the eyes of those who may be undecided. Bad idea.

In the battlefield, there's just no reasonable way to "spare" a reporter embedded with enemy or friendly troops. None.

If you were an Al-Jazeera reporter embedded with tanks for the Rep. Guard you are toast.

No issues here. You are with soldiers under fire. Whose side are you on? Your bacon is in the pan with the guys taking fire. Journalists standing back and letting harm come to others, so that they can be "objective", are wasting my oxygen.

The theory that future press will be in more danger because of this really strains logic. Will their cloaking devices not protect them, Mr. Data?

Get Real.

Christopher,

I wish that it were so, but alas its not. Our primary enemies now and in the forseeable future are terorrist and totalitarian states that recognize that media/propoganda are tools of war. They have and will continue to use whatever means necessary to manipulate the media for their benefit, and they thoroughly believe that we will do the same.

What protects journalists in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and similar circumstance is only PR value, nothing more. You have to realize now that all of our enemies, not just some, don't recognize any legitimate rules of war unless it narrowly helps their propoganda.

"Serious question - What would journalistic ethics suggest he do in this case? "

I had four years of Jo school, although you would not know it from my spelling or grammar.

He hasn't really been questioned by many journalists for his decision. There has been some discussion at Poynter and none of it has gone after him. I'm sure someone will, but most won't. It is obvious from the specifics that he did the right thing.

More generally, the evil of Saddam, the general conduct of this war make most issues surrounding it pretty cut.

But let's not jump to too many concusions about this always being the case. The gadfly, the pain in the ass citizen standing up a a town meeting and wanting to know, the critical, skeptical, easy to scorn journalist, are part of what makes this country work.

Perhaps some of you watch press conferences and note the questions. If I may explain, harly any reporting comes out of that, that is allmostly formal attributed iteration of what is already known. So a lot of is laughable both in the questions and responses. The action is afterwords, when usually the same briefer then answers questions "on background," or "deep backgournd meaning he can be quoted, or in the latter paraphrased, leaking a position or fact or answering questions. So I would not make too many judgements about the silly circus at any actual public part of a press conference, that's for the rubes.

Now, here are two rules that are constant in history, even in democracies:
1. All governments lie.
2. Everyone hates the messenger with bad news.

If you pick up your newspaper on any given day you can invariably find an issue where some pain in the butt reporters caught a politician or government buearocrat doing something that was wrong, lying, stealing, influence peddling, covering up a mistake, or simply making an ovious mistake.

These decisions to report this are not about "loyalty," "patrotism," or "moral equivence." They are central and required part of our democracy; about your and my right to know, indeed responsiblity to know, as citizens what is being done in our names.

Look at the recent shootings in Mosul. When first posted here people said: the reporters are wrong, the US troops can not have fired into a crowd, the Army spokesman said they shot only at a rooftop. Well the reports were correct, we did shoot into the crowd. I don't think, and I did not see a report that said, our troops fired into that crowd without cause. I think they did so with perfectly justifyable cause. But as a citizen of a democracy I don't want to blissfully ignore reality of peacekeeping among factions, its costs it Iraqi civilians and to us.

It is like the accidental bombing of the civilians. The people who don't think it should be shown, who don't think it can be true, who think violence is an "obscenity" only when not sanitized, abstracted through techno-images, are almost as bad as the morons who would say we bombed on purpose, or refused to include the possiblilty that some of the sites were staged.

Look at isssues like the Patriot Act and Guantanimo. I feel after this has been hashed out the sacrifice of rights in the Patriot Act, and the complexities of Guantanimo are well worth it. But I am also glad there was a debate in the press about the pros and cons.

Laslty should someone say: "this is war, and war is different." Hye, ok, a firefight, troop movents, etc are no-brainers. But we are essentially now in a perpetual state of deployment, moreso with the "war on terrorism" and arguably the forty years of the cold war the enemy was in many ways more physically and broadly threatening. so let's differentiate between a reporter embeded in a firefight, or a reporter who catches mention or sight of a deployment vs. reporting generally.

A question: what if the terrible "media" had had the ability to go down to the bottom of Havana harbor and see that USS Maine had not been sunk by the Spanish, as our military claimed...would it have been "un-patriotic" or "disloyal" to report that? The actual cirumcstance of the Gulf of Tonkin incident? Enemy "body counts" that failed math 101 in Vietnam?

Part of the basis if our government in the US is that it is, in fact, "loyal" and even the responsible thing to do to point out when our government makes a mistake. I want reporters in the US to be pro-US. Not necessarily pro-Government, though. They should keep the people informed about what's going on. In battle, though, there's no good reason to aid the enemy or risk your own life to be "neutral". A reporter can report what's really going on while being pro-US. In fact, a good reporter who is pro-US would report that's really going on. As others pointed out, that's the only way for the citizens to do their job and vote intelligently.

Bolie IV

Interesting observations here about the changing role of journalists under the Geneva Conventions.

The first, second and third Geneva Conventions extend to war correspondents all the protections due to combatants. They were not to be treated as spies and, even though their notebooks and film could be confiscated, they did not have to respond to interrogation....

This changed with the adoption of the 1977 Protocols, which explicitly recognized journalists to be civilians and due to all the civilian protections.

Now, journalists must not be deliberately targeted, detained, or otherwise mistreated any more than any other civilian.

This means that journalists now have an obligation to differentiate themselves from combatants by not wearing uniforms or openly carrying firearms....

I don't think anybody but the dead (expletive)s would object to what this reporter did. He wanted to live. I think it's simple.

It's possible to imagine some strange scenarios, though. What if the reporter had been embedded with an Iraqi unit? This kind of thing may have come up in Vietnam, where some Western reporters did travel with the NVA.

Christopher -- As far as I recall, the US does not recognize the 1977 Protocols.

Quinn I want to thank you. That was thoughtful and informative. I am a vet and am 100% behind both the war and our troops But people who think our Pentagon hasn't lied small time and big time, just like any other government agency, are kidding themselves. The idea of going to the voting booth along with some idiot who is happy with his head in the sand after watching some rah rah video (complete with patriot music) masquerading as "reporting" scares me more than any jackass with a turban and a gun.

Give me the "rude" reporter over the self-proclaimed "patriot" any day.

Rake, your arguments are well-tailored to the Brent Sadler case.

This guy is a passenger in a vehicle that's shooting bad guys. No way the bad guys can distinguish him as a non-combatant even if they were so inclined.

If you look closely, you'll find the reporters oftimes wear clothing with the word Press on it. The idea always has been that the distinction would be honored, and somehow folks wearing it would be protected to some degree by the designation.

Might as well take it off. If they become participants in the firefight, they forfeit whatever protection they might otherwise assume.

(This makes no judgement on the nature of the actions themselves -- only on the outcome of the actions. Behaviors have consequences.)

Robert, interesting if true, I didn't know that. DontTread, I really should have cited that case! I know that a lot of reporters pasted big "PRESS" signs on their bodies after the Palestine Hotel incident. In light of the Sadler episode--which I watched live until just before gunfire--those signs might as well be bull's-eyes.

for Christopher:

Precisely!

It should be recalled that Ernie Pyle was killed by a Japanese sniper in WWII.

It should further be recalled that when the Army took those nice white name tags off of uniforms in the early 60's, and replaced them with the black on green name tags, it was precisely because they made easily spotted targets.

Anybody who reads this and gets angry about it would probably shit a brick if they read what Joe Galloway of UPI did in Vietnam.

Ended up manning a .30 cal at Plei Me when casulties ran high, and afterwards carried an M16 given to him by Charlie Beckwith. Galloway said he was a "civilian noncombatant". Beckwith said "No such thing in these mountains, boy. Take the rifle."

In war, when you are riding around with troops, or by yourself, you have the right of self defense. Or you can be a dead idealist. Personally, if I had been reporting over there, I would've brought a HK53 or MP5K with me. The Iraqis captured and tortured some journalists in the first Gulf War after all.

Also a J -school grad (6 years) but not a practioner. Here's a link to a hypothetical we discussed several times over the years that involes Peter Jennings and Mike Wallace:

http://www.claremont.org/writings/990217robinson.html

This one has a little clearer discussion of the program I linked earlier.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/press/vanities/fallows.html

A convention, such as the neutrality of the press, works only if all parties agree to it.

Otherwise it's a dead letter.

Saddam was very good at insisting the US follow the rules. He didn't, of course, and so had the edge.

If we had followed the conventions France insisted on, we would not be in Iraq.

How many examples of this do you want quoted at you?

None. But thanks.

The U.S. spent much of the war condemning Iraq for violating the Geneva Conventions. We can't have it both ways. The interesting question to me is whether the poster above was correct in saying the U.S. wasn't a signatory to the 1977 revisions.

As a 20-year journalist (daily newspapers, mostly), I'm with the majority on this one. The episode serves as a reminder that hoary notions of objectivity are one of the first things to go out the window when your life is being threatened.

A journalist picking up a gun crosses the line, however, unless he or she has no other choice. Why? Because your action takes on a larger significance for all journalists in the field. When you decide to become a combatant rather than a reporter, all journalists thus become legitimate targets in the eyes of the Iraqis.

'Franks' earlier comments seem to me to be most incisive. It is likely the formerly embedded journalists will in future years recall their experiences in ways that will forever change the prejudices so carefully implanted in their minds by their former journalism professors. Some of them may even 'listen' to conservatives occasionally, and find themselves in agreement.

Whoever came up with the 'embedding' idea should be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor - or something.