Are Journalists more important than soldiers?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by bokkatankie, May 30, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I watched Sky News last night, headline:

    Main News 2 British Jounalists killed in Iraq, other news oh and also Two British soldiers killed in Iraq.

    Why do journalists get the top spot and why do we now have to put up with weeks of tributes to the brave jounalists whilst the death of two soldiers will barely get a mention.

    Why are journalists more important than soldiers?

  2. Two answers to that, first one is that journos are reporting on the deaths of some of their own, this will mean a bit more coverage plus the fact that it is unusual.

    Second reason of course is that soldiers are expected to die in conflict whereas the press are supposed to be neutral and semi-sacrosanct.
  3. They get more coverage because service personnel are expected to face these risks (and sometimes pay the ultimate price), whereas journo's are only there to report whats going on, not take part.

    It also helps that it's their colleagues that are reporting it. :wink:
  4. It strikes me that they choose to be there. I am sure they get well paid for their efforts.
  5. Fang_Farrier

    Fang_Farrier LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    BBC radio last night can't remember the exact words but gave names and brief bits on two journos and then the wounded one beofre finishing article with " an American Soldier and an Iraqi civilian were also killed in the incident" Surely all that died should be given equal importance. It did make the journalists seem more important.
  6. fish-head, I tend to agree with you, the risks are the same for all. Soldiers get sent as a result of volunteering to join the armed forces. Journalists volunteer to go, mostly for good reasons. But read the books, see the awrds and listen to the self-serving nonsense that some talk and i am not so sure where my sympathies should always lie.

    What is clear is that the ones who died yesterday were barve dedicated and completley innocent. They did not deserve to die any more than one of our soldiers or the dozens of civilians also killed yesterday.

    I just get a littel annoyed when the media go into this type of overdrive just because it is one of thier own.
  7. The story was presented the same way in the telegraph

    To be fair, they aren't suggesting journo deaths are more important, however the article uses the soldiers deaths that happened earlier to "Reinforce" the journalists deaths
    The military deaths had already been reported but being used in this manner is the media manipulating information

    If I go right off on a tangent, this could be interpreted as a journalist penning a piece about journo deaths and wanting the widest audience possible so, he/she re introduces the military deaths to grab attention

    I initially thought sh_t two more when scanning the headline

    stop me if I'm talking complete coblers
  8. Journalism is a very nasty, bitchy, backstabbing enviroment, also the vast majority of Journos just do 'clebs arrse is fat shock' stories not War reporting which is regarded as the elite gig and the reason most got into Journalism in the first place - so they are awash with guilt when some real journos (or in this case sound and camera) do sadly get killed. It is not meant as a downgrading of the importance of the military deaths.
  9. I felt the same way when I opened the paper this morning, but on reflection, I think we can be just as guilty of relativism. The Iraqi interpreter killed in a SVBIED incident a couple of years ago along with 3 British soldiers hardly got a mention (and he was getting paid bugger all by our standards and wasn't out to risk his life particularly).

    What I find more distressing is that a picture of a soldier on fire (and who suffers fairly minor injuries as a result) is on the front page for days on end because it is a dramatic image to sell papers, whereas reports on deaths - even multiple ones - make a couple of inches on p 7 if you are lucky. This gives rise to a totally distorted view of the violence by most UK observers - but is a clear lesson if you ever fancy running your own insurgency and wish to do some MediaOps of your own.

    Still, there is no point getting upset by the workings of the media - it is the way of the world today. News is about novelty for the majority. Mourn those that have passed, sympathise with their families and hope that there will be less in the future (none sounds a bit too optimistic).
  10. I don't think is quite as skewed as it looks, the information on the QDG soldiers was heavily restricted and names witheld at the request of the families therefore denying the media it's usual feeding frenzy.

    Then along came the second incident, it must have seemed like their birthdays and Christmas rolled into one, and off they went on their usual free for all.

    Quite frankly, I think that the families of our soldiers should be spared the media circus that surrounds these tragic events and should be left alone or even protected but also should remain constantly in the thoughts of those who care about them, which I can assure you is not our precious media.
  11. What about when the victim is one of their's and one of ours? Frank Gardener springs to mind here.
  12. I think part of it is that Kimberly Dozier, while not the most famous of reporters, is still fairly well-known in the US by people who watch the news on any sort of consitent basis. I matched the face to the name immediately when I heard it was her.
  13. Just watched Sky news they now have it the right way round and i am happy to withdraw critism. Very sad day for the old regiment, condolences to all involved. I know they will continue to do a great job. Noted that L/Cpl was on third tour, something seems to have gone wrong with the arms plot
  14. Additonally, there is the added statistic that more journos have been killed in Iraq than in another conflict since WWII. I suspect that many Arrsers would suggest that it still isn't enough.
  15. Am not sure why so many of you are even surprised! History changes nowt! In the 70's, we would come home on leave for a few days from N.I, only to return and find out that several more soldiers had ben killed while we were away! Nothing on tv and nothing in the press! Nothing changes Im afraid. :(