Whether they are covering a war, a general election or a jumble sale, journalists have one role and one role only - to sell newspapers. In order to sell newpapers, they will lie, cheat and in the unlikely event of nothing happening - they just make it up.
Oracle.........I couldn't have put it better myself. Problem is though, if we continue to buy their newspapers....we keep them in a job. Some of them are devious little b*stards. As for truth?.........'well why spoil a good story with it'........as was once quoted to me!
By the time we get to the wars in the former Yugoslavia the conventions had changed utterly. Wearing a jacket with "press" badge and travelling in a civilian vehicle flying a white flag actually attracted fire. Several correspondents there recalled driving for their lives as snipers from both sides tried to pick them off. One said, "The locals feel we are leeches sucking away at their misery."
Slow to start, mainly due to it's lacking in stimulation.
As for journalists being considered 'legitimate targets', I don't have a problem with that.
If you are stupid enough to put yourself in a situation, usually against the specific instruction/advice of those who know better, then you get what's coming. If you manage to get out of it with 'the big scoop!' you'll be quick enough to take the money/career enhancements for the story/photos and any of the accolades that 'hacks' receive at their annual backslapping piss ups. If you f*ck up and get slotted.......tough, at least you've made the headlines though, just not in the manner by which you had originally intended.
I'm all for freedom of the press.....and you're free to get yourselves shot if you so wish. You're also free to dress up as para militaries, which is probably the reason why your presence comes to the attention of those who 'top' you, in the first place.
I'm just not concerned when a member of the press gets some. In fact, if I'm honest, it makes my day.
The media done for themselves with that old boot 'Kate Adie'. All she wanted to do was to be seen as some sort of 'action woman'...............whatever happened to her? It's OK I'm not really looking for the answer to that.
Thank goodness for scholars .. our society would be so much the poorer if only populated by warriors "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword" e.g. pen mightier than ... etc etc (or today, email mightier than)
Okay .... We'll leave it up to the correspondents from the Good Ol' US to report on "up and coming events", where we'll learn that Uncle George's boys win the day yet again .... Oh, and apparently there was a supporting act ... but hey, they didn't do much ...........
OK Jake, you cannot be surprised at the reaction you got. To aswer your original questions, it's yes to both IMHO.
I am assuming that if any of us agrees with a) you will come back with the question "including the military Executive?" Again, I would answer yes, but the trouble is with journalism, it is never, ever carried out without meeting someone's agenda, usually the political agenda of the journo's employer.
I don't think soldiers would object too much to honest, unbiased reporting - which is pretty much a contradiction in terms...