Many war correspondents and photographers go into war zones to document what really happens on the frontlines. They put their lives at risk in hopes of bringing back the truth behind the curtains of war. Are the truths of war worth the lives of war correspondents’? I do not think they should put their lives on the line to exploit the truth. They have loved ones back home who wish they would stay and not put their lives in danger.
I came across an example of this in an article I read for a group project in my English 101 class. The Taliban abducted a French photographer named Pierre Borghi on November 27, 2012. He was looking for work in the humanitarian or urban sectors. Pierre Borghi was given a piece of paper on which to write down his information for a background check to be given to the Taliban Cabinet then passed down to the French authorities. Since the French authorities were not meeting the Taliban’s demands, they said Pierre’s execution would be within the next few days. As a result, Pierre did not wait when he noticed his chains were loosed he escaped back to a military base.
Two more examples of war correspondents putting their lives in danger are Sebastian Junger and Tim Hetherington the war correspondents for the Korengal Valley and creators of Restrepo. Sebastian and Hetherington put their lives in danger in order to document what the soldiers of Battle Company, 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment of the 173rd Airborne Brigade did while in the Korengal Valley. They were caught in the middle of many firefights between the soldiers and the Taliban and their lives were constantly in danger. Sadly, on April 20, 2011 Tim Hetherington was killed in Misurata, Libya while on another war correspondent assignment.
War correspondents have dangerous jobs that require them to put their lives at risk for footage of frontline warfare and how soldiers live while at war. Are these assignments worth the war correspondent’s lives? , should they be given security and boundaries to where they can film? I believe if they are going into a war zone, they should be protected and given boundaries that they should not cross. If these conditions are not met then war correspondents should not go to that war zone, its just way too dangerous for them to be out in the field. 
I think that if someone sees the cause as worthy enough to willing risk their own life, then it is indeed worth the danger, the risk, and ultimately, their life. Setting boundaries for "safety" would significantly hinder their work because they are out there to show us, the audience back home, the real danger of the situation. If they don't go into the danger, they may as well not go at all. Then it is no longer worth the risk. But war correspondents know how dangerous it is to be in the field, and accept the risk full knowing that they may die for their cause. They find the cause worthy of dying for, and if they don't, they shouldn't go.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with Ellie. If someone is willing to risk their life, than let them. They know how dangerous it is and they choose to do it. If they had boundaries set for safety reasons we would not get as good of stories. The REAL war stories need to be told.
ReplyDeleteMost war correspondents do this job because they enjoy the thrill of it, similar to soldiers. I do think it is a very dangerous job that I would never want to do, but there are some people that know the risks and are willing to take them. I think if being a war correspondent is really what you want to do and you understand the consequences then you should do it.
ReplyDelete