Rogue factions in some parts of the world now appear to regard journalists as legitimate targets. In light of this, CNN, one of the world's largest broadcast newsgatherers, has invested nearly $1 million and dramatically stepped up security and training for its staff. These are nightmarish times for those working in the media; we are being killed at an unacceptable and unprecedented rate doing a legitimate job. More likely, some say, to be killed in the line of duty than members of the armed forces are.
It is clearly time, I would argue, for responsible news organisations around the world, to provide mandatory safety training for staff likely to be deployed to war zones or other hostile environments.
And if ever we needed a grim reminder of this fact, then the hideous murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl has brought it to our attention again.
Why was he kidnapped, tortured and subsequently murdered? Was it an attempt to change the views and behaviour of the American government? If it was, then it's clearly gross and unacceptable. This is not just an assault on our profession but one on Free Speech as well. Whatever the reality, we in the media will have to learn to live with it. With multiple wars now raging, more journalists will die and be injured, many with little or no experience of hostile environments, let alone training. But we can do something about it.
Let's remind ourselves of the horrible facts. More than one hundred journalists died around the world last year, eight in Afghanistan alone. This year has already started badly. Pearl's murder and the fatal shooting of the Italian photojournalist in West Bank plus the injuries to others looks just the tip of a bloody iceberg.
News organisations like CNN, BBC and Reuters have a moral and ethical responsibility to ensure that their staff are trained and protected to the best possible extent. More importantly, organisations such as these will not be able to provide a true and impartial news service if they cower in the face of lethal aggression.
I am proud that Britain was one of the first countries in which journalists had access to hostile environment safety training. In the United States, CNN has led the charge with dozens of staff signing up for hostile environment training in Britain, Asia and in the US. But up until last week, while actively encouraged for everyone, it had never been mandatory. Experienced newsgatherers with years of battle experience on the frontlines or with living in some of the world's most dangerous hot spots were exempt. But not any longer.
News organisations will have to dig deep in their pockets—CNN has more than 100 staff already trained, but it will have to double that number, at least in the coming months, to fulfil its commitment. With courses lasting a week and costing $4,000 per person to fully train and equip, CNN's investment in mandatory training for staff will be nearly $1 million. What's tragic and depressing is that some other news organisations have been unwilling to take the financial risk to protect their staff.
It's important to note that CNN makes no distinction between a staff member and a freelance contractor. If they are working for us or in our name, they will be trained or they will not be there.
CNN, like the BBC and others, has suffered terribly over the years. Seven CNN colleagues were shot to death in Somalia—five of them in one day. Camerawoman Margaret Moth was shot in the face by a sniper in Sarajevo. Cameraman Dave Allbritton was nearly killed in a mortar attack on the Bosnian TV building. Cairo bureau chief and correspondent Ben Wedeman was shot in the Gaza Strip.
CNN's investment in hostile environment training does not end once our staff go on location either.Well before the September 11 terrorist attack, CNN and other media institutions had provided voluntary and confidential counselling for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). In the days following the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, it became evident that our US-based correspondents were inadequately prepared to deal with the trauma of what they faced.
Now, six months on, a research project we put in place with our staff here at CNN is nearing completion and the results, I believe, will show little or no distinction between the effects of this terrible tragedy on the "urban" war correspondents as they compare with their overseas colleagues.
Yet there is virtually no acknowledgement at all within most of the industry that PTSD even exists among our ranks. This, despite the fact that counselling for the armed forces and police and fire personnel is routine, and has been so for years now.
Curiously, it has taken the media industry far too long to realise that it is perfectly natural for journalists, like other folk, to feel the effects of trauma. There is nothing particular about the work that they do that keeps them immune from what they experience and feel. So to deny it and think otherwise is unnatural at best and dangerous at worst.
In the past, death and injury in journalism was often put down to bad luck, a rogue event, unfortunate and for some just part and parcel of the job we do. Daniel Pearl's dreadful murder was another wake-up call.