24 Role of Media, Obligations and Ethical concerns communication, Journalistic repertoire

Rohini Sen

Table of Contents

1. Learning Outcomes
2. Introduction
3. Risk faced by Media
4. Protection under IHL
5. Role of Media in a Conflict
6. Social Medial

1. Learning Objective

• To give students an overview of the necessity of media in a conflict;
• By the end of the module students will have an understanding of international human rights law on media.

2. Introduction

The end of the Cold war brought about a change in the traditional warfare. It ended major intra-state conflicts but inter-state conflicts, especially in Africa and Asia, continued. The non-state actors became parties to the conflict. The non-state actors of the conflict became dependent upon the attitude and perception of the population. With the globalization and advancement of technology media dimension has become important to mobilize audience and setting political agendas. The psychological factor of the mass started to play an important role in the warfare.

The role media can has two different as well as opposed forms of effects. It may be an active actor in a conflict or stay independent. It depends upon the factors of conflict and relation between media and parties involved in the conflicts. Some modes of media are controlled by political elites and policy makers, thus, preventing grass-root level actors to access and influence the media arena. However in this era of technology, social media is the most powerful platform for exchange of information. There has been a departure from the traditional methods to access news.

3. Risk faced by Media

Reports covering the armed conflict are under constant risk. They are exposed to the dangers arising out of military operations; they can become the victims of battlefield hostilities, such as bomb raids, direct enemy fire or stray bullets, mine explosions. They are also under a constant threat of becoming a victim of arbitrary acts of violence by non-state actors. For instance, in 2014, American freelance journalist and photojournalist, James Wright Foley, and Israeli-American journalist, Steven Joel Sotloff, were victims of the beheading incident by non-state actor ISIS. Thus, the scope of International Humanitarian Law is extended to protect and facilitate media professionals.

International humanitarian law distinguishes between but does not specifically define two categories of journalists working in war zones: war correspondents accredited to the armed forces and “independent” journalists. According to the Dictionnaire de droit international public, the first category covers any “specialized journalist who is present, with the authorization and under the protection of the armed forces of a belligerent, on the theatre of operations and whose mission is to provide information on events relating to on-going hostilities.” They attempt to provide with written accounts or photos of the conflict-ridden zones. They tend to be the first casualty of the conflict. At least 46 journalists had died due to their work according to a report in 2011 by the Committee to Protect Journalists. This only refers to the number of journalists whose motive for death has been proven. Seventeen died on dangerous assignments and eight in combat situations, mostly during the uprisings in the Arab world. The number of journalists imprisoned in 2011 reached its highest level since 1996, with 179 journalists being detained worldwide. So far in 2012, nineteen journalists have already been killed in combat/crossfire, out of which seventeen have become victims of the Syrian conflict. These statistics suggest that the numbers of killed and imprisoned journalists have been on a steady rise since 2003, with small decreases depending on the brisance of conflicts, and have reached peaks as high as a total of 74 casualties in 2009. A total of 66 journalists were killed in 2014, bringing the overall number of journalists killed in connection with their work in the past decade to 720. This is a trend that corresponds to the increasing dangers and difficulties that journalists face and which is further illustrated by the fact that 35 per cent of all journalists killed covered stories related to wars and conflicts. In order to become a war correspondent within the meaning of international humanitarian law, official accreditation by the armed forces is mandatory.

                                                                                   Figure 2: Shooting the Messenger: Journalists Targeted by All Sides in Syria

4. Protection under IHL

As war correspondents are not a part of armed forces, they enjoy civilian status, thus, benefitting from corresponding protection. Article 50 of the Lieber Code provided that provided that citizens accompanying the army, such as reporters, should, if captured, be considered Prisoners-of-War. Similar provisions were subsequently integrated into the 1899 and 1907 Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land (IV) under Article 13 as well as into the Geneva Convention’s Prisoner of War of 1929 under Article 81. The Geneva Convention defines a war correspondent as a reporter or journalist who has been officially recognized by the military. Article 4A(4) of the Third Geneva Convention and Article 79 of Additional Protocol I defines this form of “journalists” as civilians and are entitled to prisoner of war status, authorized to accompany Armed Forces and if captured afforded the same privileges given to military personnel. These measures apply only to journalists recognized by the military as war correspondents. While covering the armed conflicts, they are exposed to the associated threats and risks. Article 79 stipulates that journalists engaged in dangerous professional missions in areas of armed conflict “are” civilians within the meaning of Article 50 (1) and thereby benefit from all the protection conferred by international humanitarian law on civilians. Journalists are thus protected against the effects of the hostilities and against arbitrary conduct on the part of a party to the conflict if they are captured or arrested by it. They are given the status of prisoner-of-war if they had the authorization to follow the armed forces. Also, to protect the proper ability to function, the journalists can be obliged to testify, with respect to events relating to their work, only if the evidence sought must be direct and important value in determining a core issue or when the evidence cannot reasonably be obtained elsewhere. The status of war correspondent, sometimes, has been granted to ‘embedded journalists’. Embedded journalists require official accreditation to be a legal war correspondent. They move with troops during a conflict.

Such protection, however, is not granted to ‘unilateral’ journalists. The legal protection is applicable unless the journalists do not directly participate with the hostilities. The ‘participation’ does not include to their routine or ancillary activity but to uncustomary acts which has an effective as well as direct contribution to military action. Indulging in such activities with lead to withdrawal of the journalist’s immunity and can make him/her a legitimate target. The authorities capturing a journalist while he is committing acts of hostility or subsequently may take measures of repression or security against him, in application of Article 45 (“Protection of persons who have taken part in hostilities”) of Protocol I or of the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention (internment, assigned residence, etc.). In addition, since journalists are not members of the armed forces, they may charge him with perfidy under Article 37 (1) (c) of Protocol I.

5. Role of Media in a Conflict

During armed conflicts, particularly where belligerent parties have committed serious violations of human rights, there is a strong public interest to protect the scope of free expression and right to receive and impart information. It plays a potential role in conflict prevention, conflict management, and post-conflict reconstruction. It can take an active part in the conflict and has responsibility for increased violence, or stay independent and out of the conflict, thereby contributing to the resolution of the conflict and alleviation of violence. Thus, media requires censor-free and total access to information. The state, however, interferes.

The rights of media are inclusive of special duties and responsibilities. The state may work in hand with the media. But the state can manipulate media to enhance its public image and camouflage its mistakes. The military aims to win the conflict and minimize the causalities. But media wants unhindered platform for expression. Western militaries have tools political ‘spin’ adapted to the ends of war fighting through deception, distortion, omission or obfuscation. During the Iraq conflict in 2003, the British media were verbally attacked by ministers and members of parliament accusing them of playing the Iraqi propaganda game. Few years earlier, NATO representatives had publicly justified the bombing of RTS in Belgrade on the grounds that NATO wanted to neutralize a propaganda tool. While there is no doubt that the RTS was being used for that purpose, a reasoned interpretation of Article 52 of Protocol I precludes propaganda as the sole justification for a military attack against the media. On this point, the ICTY committee adopted a firm and clear position: the media are not “a legitimate target” merely because they spread propaganda, even though that activity constitutes support for the war effort, and the morale of the population as such is not a “legitimate military objective.” All kinds of propaganda, however, like inciting acts of genocide or violence, are not authorized.

Media can be used as a forced multiplier. With increasingly intense international competition between globalized news corporations, NGOs concerned to avoid an overwhelming humanitarian crisis aids and abets the news coverage. It pressures the government to intervene and protect human rights. International media are usually seen as an arena for policy-setting. International media sources such as the BBC, CNN, al Arabiya, and al Jazeera have global reach, and as such have an “agenda-setting effect.” It is based upon the ideological components of political disagreements, and more specifically the way key actors in conflict seek to manipulate public perceptions of the disagreement.

The local media can contribute to peace merely by restoring levels of trust and self-worth in a population on the brink of or emerging from violence. Local media often yields non-tangible results in war-torn communities, such as increased levels of trust, increased hope in the future of the country, and the ability to contribute to a peaceful society. It can become an important tool to shape and develop a conflict in the ground. This has been best documented in Mark Thompson’s ground-breaking account of the role of the local media in former Yugoslavia, Forging War, which documents how the media aided and abetted the destruction of Yugoslavia, the rise to power of extreme nationalism and the forging of a conflict between groups of people who had lived together peacefully all their live.

Journalism has the responsibility to create a balance environment of opinions. It can counter hate speech along with distributing information. It, however, becomes a grey area for the media to ensure balance between preventing harm and protecting an individual’s right of expression. It is an arena which represents various different experiences and outlook of the society. This becomes more difficult during conflicts. In order to achieve this journalists have to stay clear of judgemental representations and describe reality without embellishment.

6. Social media

Because of the technology, social media has become a power tool. It has become the most rapid mode of communication and exchanging information. For example, in February, 2011, anti-Qaddafi demonstrators began uploading images of the rebellion and government reprisals on their Facebook pages. The easy accessibility and quick transmission of information is the key factors. It is a global platform of wide scope and open access. It quickly and efficiently publicises the events and information. A post by a single user can ‘go viral’ within a short period of time, reaching to millions of users. It is the easiest platform to engage others.

During a conflict, parties can easily engage the masses by promoting and publicizing their campaigns. For instance, in 2010s, non-state actor ISIS used social media to as forum to promote their ideology and gather young recruits for their cause. The United Nations’ Facebook page, for example, posts items on conflicts in Syria, Darfur and Congo, land mine policy, and other information related to IHL. The UN’s Twitter account operates similarly.  On 10 April 2012 Ban Ki Moon participated in a Google+ ‘hangout’ where he answered questions from global participants on a variety of issues, including enhancing the protection of civilians in armed conflict. NATO operates YouTube channels in three languages, numerous Twitter accounts and Facebook pages that provide regular updates of its activities in Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere. The organisation also promotes regular web- chats so that the public can engage in Q&A with NATO and other government officials about NATO operations and policies. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) Spokesperson’s Twitter account has nearly 30,000 followers; there are several accounts in multiple languages, and numerous Israeli military and defence officials have personal accounts. The IDF Tweets include messages regarding consignments to Gaza, reports of rocket fire on civilians, and information on new weapons capabilities and force protection. On other hand, it is a medium to expose the wrongdoings and provide with their evidentiary value to general population. WikiLeaks, a website, through this medium tries to fulfil its goal “to bring important news and information to the public… One of our most important activities is to publish original source material alongside our news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth.”

These technologies, however, can also be manipulated or misused, potentially hampering the monitoring and enforcement of the law. The authenticity of the collected evidence and their forensic analysis if questionable raises complications. It can efficiently publicize information and capability of exponentially reproduction of the information. Both state and non-state actors have begun to harness its potential. Social Media is a convenient forum to be used for educating and promoting IHL because of its nature.

Reference

• Sejal Parmar, The Protection and Safety of Journalists: A Review of International and Regional Human Rights Law, Seminar and Inter-regional Dialogue on the protection of journalists European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, 2014.
• Knut Dörmann, ‘International Humanitarian Law and the Protection of Media Professionals Working in Armed Conflicts’ https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/article/other/media-protection-article-.htm
• Alexandre Balguy-Gallois, ‘The Protection of Journalists and News Media Personnel in Armed Conflict’ International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 86, No. 853, March 2004, pp 37-67https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc_853_gallois.pdf
• Isabel Düsterhöft, ‘The Protection of Journalists in Armed Conflicts: How Can They Be Better Safeguarded?’ (2013) 29(76). Utrecht Journal of International and European Law 4-22 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2219189