Caught in the line of fire

More than 27 journalists have died this year while reporting from war zones. But even one casualty is unacceptable, writes Geert Linnebank, editor-in-chief of Reuters

It is a rare event for senior US military commanders and government officials to agree to spend an entire day in a room full of journalists. But this is what happened in Washington just a few weeks ago. The subject that led to this unprecedented gathering was the urgent need to reduce the numbers of journalists killed or injured in the line of duty.

It is a rare event for senior US military commanders and government officials to agree to spend an entire day in a room full of journalists. But this is what happened in Washington just a few weeks ago. The subject that led to this unprecedented gathering was the urgent need to reduce the numbers of journalists killed or injured in the line of duty.

This issue is not new. Over the past decade more than three hundred journalists have been killed. But the growing size of the problem and impact on the media's ability to report has at last created a willingness on the part of governments and the military to recognise the issue. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), last year 38 journalists were killed. The death toll this year has already reached 27. These numbers include much missed colleagues at Reuters.

Taras Protsyuk, a Reuters cameraman, was killed on 8 April last year when a US tank fired a shell at the press hotel in Baghdad from which he was working. Jose Couso, a cameraman working for Spain's Telecinco, also lost his life while three Reuters colleagues were badly injured in the attack and spent many months recovering.

In August Reuters' award-winning cameraman Mazen Dana was shot by US troops while filming outside the now notorious Abu Ghraib prison on the outskirts of Baghdad. Despite the fact he had made himself known as press to the soldiers at the prison, the soldier who fired the shot that killed him stated he was unaware Mazen was a television journalist, and had mistaken his camera for a rocket launcher.

The fact that Taras and Mazen were both killed by US troops whose actions were found by US military investigators to be in accordance with the Army's (unpublished) "rules of engagement" highlights a worrying new development. I still struggle to see how firing on a journalist working from a balcony at what everyone knew to be the base for the foreign media in Baghdad, or a cameraman who had clearly identified himself to soldiers at the prison, could possibly fit into any accepted set of rules.

After much lobbying by Reuters on these two cases, the US military has now begun to engage with media organisations on how to improve safety. At the Washington meeting both sides outlined their concerns, and work has begun to map out practical ideas. These include better training for soldiers to ensure they know the difference between a camera and a rocket launcher, giving journalists access to crucial safety information held by the military, and better communication and co-ordination between troops on the ground regarding the presence of non-embedded journalists in operational areas. What we need to see now is real, firm commitment to implementing these ideas on the ground immediately.

That would help with one part of the equation - minimising the chances of accidental harm being inflicted on a journalist by the military. More worrying, however, is the fact that some parties to conflict seem to think harming a journalist could actually help their cause. The horrific murder of The Wall Street Journal's Daniel Pearl in Pakistan in 2002 was a terrible reminder that some risks of this profession cannot be mitigated by holding conferences.

The only defence our profession has in the end is our own great powerful weapon - our mission to report all sides of a conflict objectively. It is only by stressing the value of independent reporting that reporters can have any hope of safe passage.

What makes the situation so complicated is that one of the solutions to solving the problem of accidental deaths and injuries to journalists may compromise the objectivity and independence needed to lesson the danger from partisans.

While embedding journalists with US troops or the armies of other coalition nations may make it easier for commanders to protect them, the very sight of combat gear-outfitted television reporters surrounded by soldiers may create an impression of the press having chosen a side. The press should have but one side to take: the side of honest, objective and independent reporting.

Alas, the right of journalists to work safely and independently is under threat in many countries around the world. Last month the Reuters cameraman Adlan Khasanov was killed in the Chechen capital Grozny when a bomb exploded, assassinating that country's president. He was just a few weeks away from his 34th birthday.

In Israel, Reuters and the Middle Eastern TV station Al Jazeera has spent the last two years fighting a government decision to routinely deny press credentials to all Palestinian reporters on the grounds that they are a potential security threat. At the end of 2001, the Israeli government refused to renew press cards it had previously granted to Palestinian journalists, including a Reuters colleague who had held a press card for 12 years.

Press cards are vital for reporters working inside Israel and on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. They are the only press credentials recognised by the Israeli army, which controls move- ment between Palestinian enclaves. This policy in effect allows the government significant control over which journalists can report and from where.

In April, the Israeli High Court of Justice in a landmark case declared the government's policy illegal and ordered it to renew the press cards of the journalists involved. However, the government has sought leave to appeal, and this remains an important test case for press freedom in the country.

Threats to the role of journalists as independent observers are not only confined to conflict zones. Prosecutors in the US courts have recently subpoenaed journalists to give evidence supporting cases against suspected terrorists. News organisations, including Reuters, are rightly fighting unreasonable attempts to use the testimony of independent observers.

There are many other difficult countries for journalists to cover. In Zimbabwe, where reporters are severely restricted, in Colombia the risk of kidnap is real, in volatile locations such as Haiti, or countries such as Iran or Cuba working independently poses major safety and operational challenges. What unites journalists in all of these countries is their commitment to telling the story truthfully. This means being where the action is and not reporting from behind a desk back home. This commitment is crucial to ensuring public debate around issues such as Iraq is based on accurate and independent information.

When accepting the Committee to Protect Journalists's International Press Freedom Award in 2001, Mazen recalled that he had been shot in the leg three times, hit by rubber bullets and beaten by soldiers on numerous occasions and had his hand broken twice.

He knew that one day covering the news might also kill him, but he said nothing would stop him working as a journalist so people could see what was happening and judge for themselves. We owe it to journalists like Mazen to be as courageous in our efforts to protect their right to report the truth.

Last night, Reuters held a public debate, 'On the Front Line', highlighting the new dangers of reporting from conflicts