Session 2: THE INSI SAFETY SESSION

Iraq - the most dangerous conflict yet for journalists- dominated the 2nd annual International News Safety Institute debate.

• Is Iraq now too unsafe to risk sending news teams there?
• What protection for local hires who are prepared to take the risks?
• The results of a new INSI study on women and war zones.
• Trauma inside the newsroom: how inside editors and producers are affected by gruesome video images

Session Chair: Nik Gowing, Main Presenter, BBC World, UK

Confirmed Featured Contributors: Nigel Baker, Managing Director, APTN, UK; Mark Brayne, Director-Europe, The Dart Centre, UK; Stephen Claypole, Chairman of the board, World Picture News, USA; Chris Cramer, Managing Director CNN International, USA; Brian Donald, NBC Picture Editor, US; Andrew Kain, Managing Director, AKE Ltd; John Martinkus, Journalist, SBS, Australia; Melinda Quintos de Jesus, Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, Philippines; Rodney Pinder, Director INSI, UK; David Schlesinger, Global Managing Editor, Reuters, UK; Adrian van Klaveren, Head of Newsgathering, BBC News, UK; UK; Anne Waddington, sister of James Miller, UK; Sarah Ward-Lilley, Managing Editor, Newsgathering, BBC News, UK; Bill Wheatley, Vice President, NBC News, USA; Bryan Whitman, Assistant US Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs

Produced by Rodney Pinder, INSI

Nik Gowing: Thank you very much for coming back, we are ten minutes late which wouldn't be much good in our business, but we are ten minutes late. No one's been spotted on the beach so most of you have returned which is good news, or others are doing business which is good news. I'm Nik Gowing with BBC World television, I want to very much continue the spirit of Emad more self-critical and more self-confessional. There are some very difficult issues we are going to look at over the next hour and a half, particularly the issue of how fast things are now changing in the safety field - I think it's going to go to the heart of many of the assumptions that all of you have about gathering and reporting in war zones. I've been instructed to take this right to the edge of where things are. The players in a crisis don't even want us there for example, they don't even respect our right to be there, to work there except on their restricted, in brackets, embedded terms. An attitude that's coming from the Pentagon, it's coming from the Israeli Defence Force and now it's even coming from the insurgents. And this session is really not just about safety it's about much, much more now. Issues really are fast moving and changing and much has even changed since the conference programme was drafted and put to bed. As Chris Cramer, INSI President told the INSI annual meeting yesterday, arguably this has been the most terrible and terrifying year in our profession, I fear we said the same last year Budapest and in Lubljiana two years ago but it gets worse by the year. Three journalists have just been killed in the Philippines in the last few days alone. Our right to be there and to bear witness may be there in law but no longer in reality and that's what we want to address. Are we and our colleagues everyone's enemy now, with the right to target us and to use deadly force? And as Kris reminded us yesterday 94% of recorded incidents no one ever faces trial, no one is ever brought to justice. Last year's turbulent and very divided session similar to this at Newsxchange was about news-gatherers carrying guns in Iraq and the apparent indifference and impunity of the Pentagon and the Israeli Defence Forces. We want to talk about that, but we won't talk about guns unless you really want to talk about guns this year, because providing armed security contractor escorts is really no longer an issue for most people - almost all of you do it, especially the large news organisations, and I'm not going to press you on who. But maybe there's a new model emerging which we need to discuss in the next 90 minutes or so, and there's much worse to come in the coming year. I want to delve in to new areas of safety, reality and concern which I think it's fair to say, having talked to many of you before this session, even the most senior are very often not up to speed on just how difficult this is becoming and how much of a challenge it is to you in your business. We're talking about the immediacy and the vividness of video and internet beheadings, and the trauma that is now being created among news room editorial and technical staff. As Chris Cramer once said it's no longer about going home, getting drunk, getting laid and coming back to work on Monday morning with your brain laundered out of your trauma, there's something much deeper than that. There's now the diagnosed recorded personal crisis of coping with trauma when you may not realise how traumatised you are. That's how deep it runs and how many of you prepared to admit it? How many of our colleagues in the newsrooms are prepared to admit it? In the safety of a newsroom where frankly there's not much sympathy from managers. Like the office threat from asbestos and threats to health and safety at work, there are now the managerial implications of this, the duty of care to staff particularly in the field and now in the newsroom. It's about human costs and failing to recognise yet another unexpected but fundamental change in the nature of our business, not just out in the field in Iraq, but it's in our newsrooms in New York, in the Gulf and Beirut and London, wherever they are. Now journalism is a first responder profession just like the blue light services but as we'll hear from Mark Brayne of the DART Centre for Journalism and Trauma, we are the least prepared including and especially for an inevitable WMD attack, certainly if you believe the head of MI5 in Britain. We will hear how unprepared management is frankly making things much worse thereby leaving news organisations potentially legally and financially vulnerable. That means new costs on several fronts and that's really what is ahead, that issue of negligence and the duty of care. But let's look back to where we were a year ago and do an audit of where we are one year on from Newsxchange in Budapest. What progress has there been on the core issues that all of you raised and I kept pushing you on. The IFJ says that 101 journalists have been killed in the last 11 months. We're going to focus on the Philippines later, we're not going to get hung up particularly on Iraq. But even with the acceptance of acute risk in conflict there remains the impression of a disturbing indifference and impunity by even the most sophisticated military machines, we saw that last year and I wanted to remind you of two particular examples one of which was the targeting of Mazen Dana outside the Abu Ghraib prison on the 17^th August, it seems a long time ago. The Palestinian cameraman, there was the road block, he had permission to be there, camera on the shoulder and then the fighting vehicle, a tank comes along and he was shot dead. Here it is in slow motion for those who haven't seen it, what happened to him and his sound man. The most important thing was that he had permission to be there. Now, there has been since an investigation, you won't be able to read that on screen but that's proof there's a report about one and quarter pages long, some of it has been redacted. There are two particular things that came out of it. That forces should inform media outlets about changes to threat conditions or modifications to rules of engagement without compromising force protection. And secondly a bit more complicated - you won't be able to read this, but the fear among the US military that military that coalition forces would become more hesitant or fearful in enforcing the ROE, the rules of engagement, if they have to think about us. David Schlesinger, Global Managing Editor at Reuters, how comfortable are you with this report so long after the event?

David Schlesinger: I would be much more comfortable if I thought the recommendations had been followed, had been pushed down, had been believed within the US military. Unfortunately even though the recommendations made good sense about better communication, about understanding about non-embeds - there was no indication to me that these recommendations in the report have been understood, have been carried out and that there will be any progress.

Nik Gowing: Is one and a quarter pages with those kinds of conclusions enough for you after the death of one of your cameramen?

David Schlesinger: Well, it's not the death of one of my cameramen. We have already, unfortunately, suffered three deaths in the Iraq conflict. And what the death of Mazen Dana, Taras Protsyuk and more recently Dhia Najim have in common is that they were all non-embedded, they were all non-coalition nationals, they were all at the hands of the US military and the US reaction in all cases suggests that they were justified killings. They were not tragic accidents but they were somehow justified because maybe a camera is an RPG, maybe there is a sniper, maybe Dhia Najim was out with the bad guys to use a quote that a US official told the New York Times. All these to me are unacceptable.

Nik Gowing: When you look at the language though, there's another part of that on the 2^nd page, the last quarter of the page talking about the need for commanders to examine the weapons codes used by their soldiers in the field. Does that give you any confidence?

David Schlesinger: It would give me confidence if I knew what the rules of engagement were, if I knew what the training was, if there was true engagement about safety and about the need for understanding about what we do as a profession. I fear that there is not that understanding, so no matter what is in that report I don't have much confidence.

Nik Gowing: Alright, we're going to go to Brian Whitman at the Pentagon in just one moment. Has anyone amongst the news executives ever seen the US Rules of engagement in a situation like this? Has anyone seen a document or a card or anything carried by any troops? Alright let's go live to the Pentagon, very early in the morning there in New York, Brian Whitman, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs thanks for joining us and getting up so early. I hope you heard what DS said from Reuters? What's your response to the fact that this simply isn't good enough?

Brian Whitman: Thank you very much for asking me to join you today, this is a very important forum and I'm glad to see that news organisations gather in a forum like this to discuss important issues such as safety. I welcome David's comments, David and I have conversed frequently on the issue of safety of journalists in combat situations. You ended the discussion with a question about rules of engagement, I think it's important for everyone there to understand that our Rules of engagement are reviewed on a constant basis. Our Rules of engagement though are not published documents, it would be unwise for an army to publish its Rules of engagement for an adversary to know when or when not a military force may engage them. If you're looking for that kind of document to be a public document, you won't see that.

Nik Gowing: Well, you say you won't see that but will you not publish it? Here we are talking about a large number of our colleagues that have been killed sometimes by US forces we need to understand much more than is in this one and a quarter page report why they are dying and what the rules of engagement are?

Brian Whitman: A 1 ¼ page report is a very extensive report. The very unfortunate death of Mazen Daner was investigated very thoroughly, it was a comprehensive investigation and it is available for anyone to see. Yes it is redacted, in this country we have privacy laws that we have to follow and there are portions of those reports that get redacted primarily names and things like that. The Rules of engagement are the guidelines that military forces operate. Those Rules of engagement ensure that in all cases military forces have the right to self defence. There is absolutely no way that any military in the world would provide their Rules of engagement to the enemy and quite frankly, if we were to provide those to the news media, there would be no way of preventing those from getting into the hands of the enemy. You can be assured though that when incidents like this happen the US military takes it very seriously and they evaluate their Rules of engagement each and every time an incident like this occurs, and there have been modifications that have been made throughout time and there has been emphasis throughout the chain of command when incidents like this occur also.

Nik Gowing: Ok can you clarify just one thing, the last phrase 'there's got to be refresher training on the distinguishing characteristics of the weapons status codes for anyone of your soldiers in the field', what does that mean?

Brian Whitman: With respect to weapons status it depends on quite frankly the situation in which the military is involved in at the time, it can change. As you know the security situation in all parts of Iraq is not the same, it is uneven and in certain places where there is more violence, the Rules of engagement are such that it accounts for that higher level of violence. So these are things that are adjusted given the tactical situation on the ground and I think our commanders are acting in a very responsible way, a very careful way and they are very judicious with respect of using lethal force when they have to.

Nik Gowing: OK, let's leave it there for the moment because I'm just giving an audit of where we were last year, where we are this year we are going to come back to many of those issues so the argument is not yet over. Very quickly David, we're going to come back on several of those other cases, but your response to Brian Whitman.

David Schlesinger: I think the clearest question I have for Brian is about the latest case because I wrote to him just a week ago today and I think it's crucial to know what is the Pentagon's position on non-embeds? Because that goes right through the entire litany of the cases we've had in the past year. Are non-embedded journalists fair game because all of us in this room need to know that to make decisions.

Nik Gowing: Alright I'm going to park that question because we want to come on to the relationship with the Pentagon with Eason Jordan shortly. Can I move on to the 2^nd big case from last year that of James Miller, the British freelance cameraman who last week, posthumously, received the features award in the Rory Peck Awards. Now I'm going to reply just for those of you who weren't here last year a reminder of what happened to James Miller and his correspondent colleague Saira Shah and the team of four when they were in Rafa on the 2^nd May which coincidently was the launch date of INSI in Brussels, it's still painful for many of us to watch this, a rare event, something as horrific as this actually being recorded on camera by APTN. But what I want to do is to take you forward into how this has been followed up in the last year or not. I hope to be joined shortly by James Miller's sister who has been stuck on a train, we sent a car for her to get her to London, but this is what happened on the 2^nd of May when they were filming the Israeli bulldozers and this is how they tried to get out later that evening after darkness had fallen.

(Runs tape)

Nik Gowing: That was the 2^nd of seven shots that killed James Miller, they were being watched through night vision goggles by two armoured personnel carriers of the IDF a couple of hundred yards away, Chris Cobb-Smith headed an investigation but I wanted to remind you how we took that forward at this event last year. The tension and anger on this issue when live from Jerusalem the Prime Minister's press secretary Ranaan Gissin joined us, he's a reserve colonel in the IDF as well and he was confronted by James Miller's brother John.

(Runs tape)

Nik Gowing: That meeting never took place, there have been a number of pressure points from the British government and I'm just going to show you on screen the written answers in the British parliament literally about two weeks ago, just to underline what the British government has been saying and the pressure they've been putting on. The Military Police investigation, according to the British government is now under way - this is 3^rd November, a couple of weeks ago in the House of Commons. Secondly in the House of Lords, Baroness Symons a Foreign Office Minister, a minister for trade reporting how the Israeli government have acknowledged responsibility for Mr Miller's but the IDF's inquiry into the full circumstances of this tragic case is still under way. That's 18 months after James Miller was shot. Anne Waddington is sitting in the studio in London but we can't go to her at the moment so I'm going to ask you to freeze because she will tell us just how frustrating this has become in terms of coming out and getting full responses from the Israeli military, full responses from the Israeli Advocate General. Pause at that moment with that story and I'm going to move on to the story of the Palestine Hotel, because the bitterness and suspicion of that and what happened on the 8^th April last year still run deep with the death as we heard from David of the Reuters cameraman Taras Protsyuk and Tele5 cameraman Jose Couso, who was working in the Palestine Hotel as US forces reached the centre of Baghdad that day they were as we all know, killed by a tank shell which hit their balcony. Fifteen months after it was completed on the 5^th June last year and after the CPJ demanded it under the Freedom of Information Act, a recently declassified 52-page CENTCOM report has merely inflamed the simmering anger. We'll go to Brian Whitman in a moment but here from Madrid is Javier, Jose Couso's brother on the progress so far and where they are still trying to direct that case 18 months later.

(Spanish Feed)

Nik Gowing: That's what's taken 19 months so far. Brian Whitman, can I put three or four points to you, he urged this meeting not to accept the 52-page CENTCOM report, he listed an enormous number of lobbying operations that are under way, he talked as well about an investigative commission and also the support of the new socialist government in Madrid. In other words in Spain they believe there is a case to answer against what they call the confessed authors of this killing, the three named members of the tank crew. What do you say to these news executives about this process?

Brian Whitman: I couldn't understand the discussion that was taking place a moment ago but let me just once again express my sympathy to the family in that tragic incident. I would offer a couple of things in response. First this was an incident that was investigated very thoroughly, the results of the investigation were not just released last week or the week before - the results of this investigation were released back in August 2003, the conclusions and the circumstances surrounding this incident were published on the website, they were the topic of discussion and had been the topic of discussion for some time.

Nik Gowing: The Couso family and the Spanish goverment do not accept at face value, prima facae the conclusions that your report came to.

Brian Whitman: Well I understand that, I can only speak to the veracity of the investigation that took place, it was an extensive investigation. The circumstances, let's recall what was going on at the time, this particular unit was engaged in heavy combat, they were being attacked; Baghdad wasn't a safe place, we had indicated to journalists and news organisations for some time prior to that, that Baghdad was not a safe place to be. We also have to realise that the people that were responsible for this death were the Iraqi forces that were using civilian facilities as places to fight from.

Nik Gowing: Brian Whitman, I've got to press you on the process: many of us have read the document and the CPJ analysis of last year - what we're talking about here is an enormous gulf of credibility when many news executives had to send their staff into an area like this and feel deeply concerned that you frankly are trying to white-wash an operation and not prepared to confront the very real concerns that they had in sending people and working alongside US forces.

Brian Whitman: Look, this investigation was by no means a white-wash and that's a very insulting term to use for an investigation that was as comprehensive, complete and detailed as this one is and you all have the report there and I think it speaks for itself. I will tell you that I appreciate the difficulty that all of you have and the challenges that you have when you have to make decisions about sending reporters into dangerous situations like this - it is dangerous and we have to accept that and if you are willing to accept that, you have to accept the consequences that could arise from putting people in dangerous situations. If you look at where the journalists have been killed in Iraq and there have been more than 40 killed in Iraq - all of them with the exception of five were not with US units when they died. Of the five that died when they were with US units one was of natural causes and one was a vehicular type of accident so I just have to emphasise again that it's a very dangerous situation when reporters are out there between enemy forces and we have to all recognise that that's a dangerous situation.

Nik Gowing: OK, we'll come back to that because there are other issues we still need to raise. DS, briefly, your cameraman was killed are you comfortable with Brian Whitman's response?

David Schlesinger: No I'm not comfortable, let me just raise two points. One, process how is it possible that the tank crew were the only people in the world who did not know that journalists were gathered at the Palestine Hotel. How is that possible? Why was there no communication? Point two, conclusion, how is possible that these were justified killings and not at the very least a tragic accident?

Nik Gowing: Alright, we're going to come back to this, Anne Waddington has now come up on the line from the CBC studio in London. Anne Waddington, thanks for making it to the studio after your train problem. We have related the story of James Miller, tell us briefly - you are a barrister yourself - what has happened with the IDF and the Israeli Military Advocate General?

Anne Waddington: Well I would like to say that in the last 19 months a lot has happened but I'm afraid that that isn't the reality. As you have introduced me, as a lawyer my approach is that I'm convinced of something once I seem to have proof and some evidence. I sit here having had no evidence at all and no proof that the Israeli military police have conducted a proper investigation into my brother's murder. Any investigation that might have been undertaken has not been prompt, it has not been thorough, it has not been independent, it has certainly not been open and least of all it has definitely not been effective.

Nik Gowing: What do you understand about the ballistics and how long it took them to discover if there was a weapon and which weapon it was?

Anne Waddington: Well, it was in fact very clear as you probably all know not only from the APTN footage, but also from the eye-witnesses present on the night that the fatal shot could only have come from one area which was the APC and in fact there were a total of 7 shots fired that night at spaces of between 5 seconds and 13 seconds, that is aiming to kill. Now, it is inconceivable that the bullet could have come from anywhere else, but of course the Israeli government and IDF have put out three completely different versions of events.

Nik Gowing: Have they interviewed the soldiers?

Anne Waddington: We understand all the soldiers claim they were on duty that night - we understand that they have interviewed one soldier 6 times we understand, also using lie detector equipment during those interviews as well. We have conducted our own ballistics testing and as a result of that and our increased pressure on the IDF, they did ask for the weapons to be surrendered but that itself took 11 even weeks after my brother's murder. They also suggested that they were going to impound 15 weapons, nine were produced and the barrels and butts can be separated it's of course only the barrel which will provide conclusive evidence as to who fired the fatal shot. And so the barrels could have been removed and replaced. But more worryingly than that, the butts are the only part of the weapon which in fact have their own mark on them and of the 9 surrendered they all have consecutive numbers. Now we are supposed to accept that there were nine soldiers who joined the army on the same day and were supposed to be on duty in the same unit that very night. It is inconceivable that these were either the correct weapons or indeed that they hadn't been tampered with.

Nik Gowing: We may lose you at any moment but I'm just going to ask you this question as I reported what was said in parliament, the Israeli government have 'acknowledged responsibility for Mr Miller's death', you are now in a race against time under the two-year statute of limitations under Israeli war law, can you, do you believe you will ever get to the bottom of this?

Anne Waddington: We will be issuing a civil action not only for my brother's murder but unless they release a comprehensive, full and transparent investigation report to us we will also be issuing a case for contributory negligence to our compounded grief.

Nik Gowing: Do you think you stand a chance of succeeding?

Anne Waddington: I'm certainly incredibly determined and hopeful, yes.

Nik Gowing: Anne Waddington, thanks for joining us. An indication there of just how difficult it is investigating these cases. Let me return to DS and also NBC, we have to return to another case of what happened on the 2^nd to the 4^th of January when three of your Iraqi staff were detained and taken to Fallujah - particularly unpleasant things happened to them, they say, along with an NBC employee. What kind of luck have you had from the Pentagon even getting them to acknowledge that they had something to explain?

David Schlesinger: Unfortunately no luck whatsoever, there was what was purported to be an investigation in this case but this was an investigation done without speaking to our people. I've repeatedly spoken to Brian about this I've written to Brian, I've written to Harry Delido, we've written to Congress and we've written to Rumsfeld. I do not understand how you can investigate an issue without talking to the people who are affected. The military kisses off saying that our peoples' reports were inconsistent and unbelievable and they just said, Òcase closed", that's the end of it. But they did that without interviewing them, without an independent thorough investigation. I am not satisfied with that.

Nik Gowing: Bill Wheatley of NBC, you had a freelance employee who was detained as well, some particularly unpleasant things did happen during the three days of detention.

Bill Wheatley: Yes our freelance was travelling with the Reuters employees at that time. They were detained for several days, humiliated in various ways, abused in physical ways as well and we too protested to the Pentagon, to Mr Whitman and I believe that he was trying to be helpful in this matter but what happens is that the civilian leadership of the Pentagon defers to the military leadership in the field so you are in a situation where the military is in effect investigating itself. It hasn't been satisfying in this regard. Just for the future I wonder whether there need not be some independent oversight group, much in the way in the US there are civilian review boards for police department misconduct.

Nik Gowing: And just before we go to Brian, let me just remind everyone again that there was applause this morning for Iraqi employees and freelancers on the 2^nd November, can we run the video of Dhia Najim who was in Ramadi, footage of the freelance cameraman being shot dead by a US sniper. Was he filming at the time David?

David Schlesinger: We believe so; we know his camera has not been returned to us, we know the military has it. Because of the Mazen Dana case we've been encouraging our Iraqi freelancers to use very small cameras so there is no possibility of it being confused with an RPG, it is clearly not a big camera. We believe he had a small camera but it has not been returned to us but certainly you can see in the video he was not taking an aggressive stance; he was not being confrontational but yet as I mentioned earlier the quote from the New York Times was that he was with the 'bad guys' - to me that's a very frightening quote and that's why I want Brian to tell me, tell us what is the status of non-embedded employees, what is the status non-embedded journalists, what is the status of non-coalition nationals?

Nik Gowing: What is the status of non-embedded journalists going about their business in a country where there is supposed to be a generation of civil society where they have rights under law under the Geneva Conventions as we heard this morning to be there to do their business of gathering news?

Brian Whitman: Absolutely that status has never changed, in a combat environment media on the battlefield operating where the military are, are afforded the same protections that any non-combatant civilian is afforded. That has always been the policy of the US Defence Department and will continue to be so.

Nik Gowing: But would you accept that there are still credibility problems? Even from what you just said, I could hear murmurs of disbelief again - that that is not what we're seeing in the field.

Brian Whitman: I don't have information to the contrary to that. Military commanders out there expect to find members of the press that are covering their operations in a unilateral status as you call it. It is something that they look for but they also treat journalists with the same kind of dignity and respect that they would treat any kind of non-combatant that's out there. The military has a responsibility to ensure that as it's operating in an area that they are doing everything necessary to one accomplish their mission and to protect their forces and to protect civilian lives on the battlefield.

David Schlesinger: Sorry Brian, your words are reassuring but does that mean you disavow what the military official told the New York Times, 'we did kill him, he was out with the bad guys, they attacked, he was with them and we fired back and hit him'. Do you disavow the statement that he was with the bad guys and that's why he died?

Brian Whitman: Well a couple of things, David: we are looking into that very specific incident, I couldn't see the film clip clearly. Reuters has shared that with me, it's a very short clip, it doesn't show any of the activity that was occurring prior to that. I did notice though, and I don't want to conduct a parallel investigation, the military is investigating that, that there was an individual at the beginning of that clip behind the wall to the right that as soon as that shot was fired scurried away under cover of the wall there. So there are a lot of issues that need to be looked at in that particular incident and that will be looked at thoroughly and comprehensively too.

Nik Gowing: Does anyone want to come back at this stage?

Juan Pedro Valent’niacute;n: I was Jose Couso's chief from TeleCinco, Spain, and I was in Prague last year with Mr Whitman and nothing has developed that the Pentagon is doing anything to investigate the death of journalists. I don't know whether anyone can believe that two journalists including Taras Protsyuk were fired on by a tank in their rooms. I told Jose Couso to stay in his room because it was safer than being on the streets. Even the journalists' hotel is not a safe place, Mr Whitman?

Nik Gowing: Can you address the issue of the process and what we heard from his brother. We've got to take this forward; we've got to learn lessons.

Juan Pedro Valent’niacute;n: We supported the process of the brother and the lesson we learned is that it is very difficult to get information from the Pentagon and develop what we are doing.

Nik Gowing: OK, another view here please.

Unidentified: I think there is a new strategy being adapted by the two sides that whoever is on the other side is bad, either he's press or anything, anything on the other side is bad and deserves to be killed and this strategy need to be changed. They have to admit that humanitarian groups and media benefit both sides because they transmit reality and information. And the strategy from the beginning has to totally change, they think of the other side as all bad guys and if the press are standing on the other side they have to be shot.

Nik Gowing: Thanks. Eason Jordan from CNN.

Eason Jordan: Brian and I have had some good discussions and I believe that there are people at the Pentagon trying to do the right thing but candidly and we hear this all the time from officials in Washington, actions speak louder than words. And you talk about dignity and respect for un-embedded journalists and journalists in general but the reality is that at least 8, maybe 10, maybe more journalists in Iraq have been killed by the US military. There are reports that I believe to be true that journalists have been arrested and tortured by US forces. One case that was not talked about here: an Al-Jazeera journalist put in Abu Ghraib and physically and emotionally abused, called a Jazeera boy and forced to eat his shoe and other things. Even now there's an Al-Arabiya journalist in Fallujah who's been in captivity now for a week. The US military has said that he is not guilty of anything and he'll be freed, but we're now 6 or 7 days into his captivity. It's just these actions and the fact that no-one in the US military has been punished or reprimanded for any of these things would indicate that the US military really does not have respect for the journalistic corps in Iraq.

Nik Gowing: Eason, we were going to come onto this later but can you just explain the process that you and several others have been through, a process that sort of began at the conference last year where you've had meetings at the Pentagon, cross-industry meetings, conference calls and so on. How much progress has been made?

Eason Jordan: Well, we have made progress; it's been a limited amount of progress - there have been meetings in the Pentagon, outside of the Pentagon at the CENTCOM level and at the command level in Baghdad. We have made progress in establishing hotline numbers in trying to heighten the communication in Baghdad between the journalistic corps there and the commanders on the ground but there's a long, long way to go and again actions speak louder than words; we hear good things but too often in practice we don't see too much to see that the words are backed up by anything of any meaning.

Nik Gowing: Brian Whitman, a credibility problem, actions speak louder than words. Why can't you address this and engage much more openly and convince all these executives who have responsibility for all their freelancers and staff out there?

Brian Whitman: I think we are pretty open with this, I wouldn't be here with this group if I didn't think it wasn't important, we've worked hard this past year with many of the people in the room there to look at ways in which we can make the job safer. It is a difficult situation when you are sending people into dangerous situations but I do think that there has been progress that's been made and I think that's because of the willingness of news executives, like those that are there like EJ and DS and others to engage the Pentagon and to discuss these things in a very serious kind of way.

Nik Gowing: One question about the political imperative of the Defence Secretary and those serving him both in the civilian field and also in uniform. You're upfront speaking to us today but there is a very strong impression that has been confirmed by other coalition militaries, that the media are a damn nuisance, ignore them, ignore the laws of armed conflict, ignore the Geneva Convention, ignore the International Criminal Court and any fear of war crimes.

Brian Whitman: I would simply disagree with that, commanders in the US military are very enlightened with respect to the free press and a democratic society. We have seen countless occasions where the media have been given a window into our operations and where our performance hasn't been as hoped. Soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are human and they're going to make mistakes and when they make those mistakes we address those and we address them in a very serious fashion. I think there's plenty of evidence that we've done that.

Nik Gowing: Chris Cramer, CNN.

Chris Cramer: Brian, I want to make one point wearing my INSI hat and let me help you because I think that people in this room have great respect for you. I think it would be really helpful if through your good offices you could do two things. First of all we don't want any repeat of asinine remarks from the administration about people in Baghdad skulking on rooftops fearful of going into the streets to do reporting, remarks like that are profoundly unhelpful and actually not true. That's a very good way of flushing out those few reporters who exist in Baghdad and there aren't very many left. Also forensic examination of those examples and those cases where journalists die which might result in prosecutions would be very helpful if you like in upholding good journalism in Iraq and elsewhere. There are very few organisations who are still prepared to cover Iraq because we are terrified about having our staffs' arse shot off. Anything the administration can do to continue to help news bosses to continue to deploy their staff through your good offices would be very helpful.

Nik Gowing: Brian Whitman, could I have a short answer to that because I want to move on to other issues.

Brian Whitman: We want to continue to work with you on those types of issues and I think some of the things we've done in the past year to help your bureau chiefs in Baghdad understand what the security environment is out there. To help them be safer is one of the things that we've done. And these are certainly two suggestions I will look at closely to see if we can't do better on those also.

Nik Gowing: Brian Whitman, thank you very much, stay with us if you want and I hope you can 'till the end. And perhaps I'll be able to play that next year as a commitment and we can do an audit on how much progress has been made because there are many other issues that we must move onto not just Iraq in the next 40 minutes or so. Particularly the issue of why we're all being targeted. There's a particularly chilling website from Al Quallah, we are swearing to God that we will reach all the news media that is not at least neutral in reporting the news, in other words we're finding ourselves in the middle and the perception is that no one really wants us there. There's a whole new world of risk out there, this is a disturbing new trend not just for journalists and us in media organisations but also with Margaret Hassan and other humanitarian workers. In Iraq the murder of al-Shakir, likad al Razak and three colleagues a few weeks after her husband was also murdered. In Baghdad the bombing of the al-Arabiya bureau on the 31^st October in which 7 were killed many of them staff and Salah, can you tell us how vulnerable you feel in your organisation just working and listening and seeing that kind of commitment to destroy any media operation and any kill any media worker who is perceived to be the enemy.

Salah Negm: That's not the 1^st threat that media organisations in Iraq have received, they were receiving threats since the beginning of the war. But this was the most serious and after actually bombing the al-Arabiya office. On the subject of terminology what is the status of Iraq - is it a country in war? I heard the gentleman from the Pentagon talking about the enemy and if the war is over then we have to talk about citizens, some of them are criminals and some terrorists and here the media person will know where he stands - what are his rights and what are the Rules of engagement, of course you don't reveal your Rules of engagement to the enemy but we need some clarification. That will reflect on the other side as well.

Nik Gowing: But why do you think you were bombed?

Salah Negm: Specifically? We were criticised by the government and our offices were shut, that was the reaction to unfavourable reporting from their point of view and from the point of view of the insurgents or the rebel groups that was their reaction; if we allow that to happen to the media from both sides then there is no end to that and we cannot report anymore.

Nik Gowing: How symptomatic is that declaration on al Quallah about the vulnerability now of every media worker now in a place like Iraq?

Salah Negm: I think after the bombing of al-Arabiya there was an unfavourable reaction from a lot of groups in Iraq as well as the media. I am very doubtful that an attack of this magnitude will be repeated but single journalists will be targeted it has happened in the past and will happen in the future.

Nik Gowing: But we are talking about the cold calculation here both to seize and to kill. As we all know some have not returned but one who was very lucky was John Martinkus from SBS who is joining me now from Melbourne. Can you tell us what happened to you and how lucky you were to get out?

John Martinkus: I was seized outside the Hamra Hotel where quite a few journalists stay in Baghdad, it's a fortified hotel. I left the security zone, turned the first corner and a car pulled up behind me another in front of me and men got out and seized me and drove me out to western Baghdad where they put me in a house and began to interrogate me basically. They wanted to know who I was and who I was working for, basically I had to convince them that I was working for an independent news organisation that had nothing to do with the coalition. Even though I was from Australia which is a coalition partner my reporting was neither pro-coalition or pro-insurgent, I was simply trying to tell the reality of what was going on.

Nik Gowing: How much did they know about you, had they targeted you specifically?

John Martinkus: It's interesting because they had actually followed me for three days, it was the part of my work that I considered the most safe, going to the Green Zone for example and going to another fortified hotel the Palestine. It was the areas where foreign press think they are safest which are in many ways the most dangerous because they are constantly monitored. They followed me for about three days, they gave me the details of my movements which showed that they'd been following me and also they'd checked me out quite extensively, they showed this by coming back and asking me questions about my past, about other conflicts I'd reported, my stance on certain issues. It was quite disturbing how thoroughly they knew who I was, who I worked for and how planned the whole kidnapping was.

Nik Gowing: Here we are trying to work out where the new frontier is, where the cutting edge is, where the new threats are; John can you share with the executives here what you think you have learned about the subtlety and the determination and the commitment of those who targeted you, decided to seize you, even Googled you to find out if you were who you said you were and then released you.

John Martinkus: I think what you have to understand in Iraq is that there are many insurgent groups, the particular group that seized me were more of a nationalist group, they were Sunnis from Fallujah, they were basically trying to get a foreigner, they believed that I was a contractor or that I was somehow involved with intelligence work and that's why they targeted me because they couldn't figure it out, I was a journalist working by myself, not working with a big crew, so they were suspicious about who I was. They seized me because they thought they could make a political statement out of it. Once they realised that I was just a reporter they were very angry with me about a lot of the coverage. The questions were along the lines and bear in mind it went on for 24 hours, so the questions back and forth were very loaded and I had to be very careful about what I said because obviously I didn't want to anger them, I wanted to be released. But they were asking things like, 'why are the resistance actions so down played'? 'Why is the presence of foreign fighters always over emphasised'? This particular group of fighters didn't even believe that al-Zarqawi existed. They were very wary and disbelieving of the American media, they were very angry with the way the conflict was reported and I tried to explain that part of the reason why reporters don't get out in the field and actually report is that they're afraid of being kidnapped. I've always tried to work pretty independently there and in the end I had to eat my words because what happened to me was exactly what people were saying would happen to you if you work without security.

Nik Gowing: John, I want to stop you there because I want to bring in Stephen Claypole, Chairman of the board of World Picture News in New York. One of your photographers had a similar experience but you too have learned things from what happened to Paul Taggart.

Stephen Claypole: What happened to Paul Taggart was terrifying, the group that took him had internet access and like the experience that's just been described the abductors downloaded stuff from the internet and what was more chilling was that they had an excel spreadsheet with the name of every foreigner staying in the al-Hamra hotel complex and the apartments round the complex and they had downloaded photographs of people staying there. We passed all of this information on to the security people an eye on western correspondents but the sophistication of that group was simply mind-boggling given the circumstances of Baghdad, deeply disturbing and deeply chilling.

Nik Gowing: Does anyone briefly from the security field want to contribute at this stage about how much the new realities are changing when you hear the level of planning.

Andrew Kain: I don't think we should be surprised at the sophistication, it's been there for some time. We should be concerned about how it's being used and that's with particular regard to the hostage situation and the beheading and I make particular reference to the two Americans and Bigley who were taken. The response particularly from the public in the UK generated the next stage from the terrorists when you got an 11-minute video of him pleading directly to Tony Blair which was huge and massive propaganda. If you think about talking about terrorism and defining it, really we need to talk about terror as the mechanism and terror as the effect. In this instance the media was used as a terrorist mechanism and that poses huge dangers in the future with regard to airing tapes or not airing them.

Nik Gowing: Alright, let's put this into perspective and go to the Philippines where there has been an extraordinary number of journalists killed this year, 8 up until a couple of weeks ago and three in the last few days alone. It's a similar problem to what we've heard from Andy Kain, John Martinkus and Stephen Claypole with Paul Taggart's experience, it's about the determination to target journalists from wherever they come and Melinda Quintos de Jesus joins us now from Singapore normally in the Philippines of course. Melinda, good to see you, how serious are the problems for your journalists and how do you relate in the Philippines to what we've been hearing here about Iraq and so many other areas of conflict?

Melinda Quintos de Jesus: I think the problems in the Philippines are reflective of this multi-faceted context in which journalists work specifically in the Philippines - there is no clear conflict going on except in certain areas in Mindenau and that is sporadic at this point, journalists face all kinds of pressure ranging from owners who want to carry on their political agendas well as outright violence against journalists. The killings, just this week we received reports of two more to be added to what would now be 49 deaths, what we call killings in the line of duty, in this year alone 10 journalists have been killed and we're counting 6 of those in the line of duty. And we're saying in the line of duty when there are enough indications or conditions that fulfil an assessment that indicates that it was because of the work that they did or being in a dangerous place or being sent on a dangerous assignment. We've been watching the killings since 1991 in order to understand ourselves the kinds of problems that a free press, and we are a free press in the sense that we don't have government restrictions our laws provide constitutional protection to the press. And yet this underlying contradiction of forces from all sides, it could be businessmen, it could be government public officials it could be just someone who didn't like what he had heard basically causing the deaths of journalists who are doing their work as they see fit.

Nik Gowing: The issue here Melinda is impunity how are they getting away with it? Do you believe there is a hand which is guiding these killers?

Melinda Quintos de Jesus: I don't think there is a hand - there is no one group, no monopoly that is wanting to silence difficult journalists. I think the factors that we have to go into in a developing democracy like the Philippines is that you don't have a court system that works, you don't have the police that have the means and sometimes the police are implicated in the criminality that reporters are reporting. Therefore you have all these factors adding up to a condition where people want to turn away. Someone has called it culture of impunity meaning the killers get away. Of all of these numbers of killings we are talking about, Nik, only two have had convictions and in those two cases we have had reports that the killers that were put away were in one case a fall guy and in another he was convicted of something else rather than the killing itself. The speed with which witnesses will not step forward, or the paucity of resources with which to go after the assassins or the masterminds. All of this contributes to a condition where one can perhaps hire an assassin and really get away with it. I think that is one of those factors but the other factor as well is the lack of understanding of what the role of the free press should be in a democracy. Meaning that we do not understand that criticisms are not personal and should not be taken personally. In an Asian context we put a high value on face saving and therefore when radio journalists use very strong language and sometimes can be rather offensive you get people saying that he asked for it and you don't get this great moral outrage. We call ourselves a democracy and yet we have this great number of journalists being killed.

Nik Gowing: Thank you Melinda, for joining us from Singapore and helping us paint this changing landscape and the new threats. Let's now move on for the last 20 minutes or so to trauma. And the issue of Beslan, of Nick Berg, the beheadings and the effect it's been having on your staff who don't actually go to war, never see blood, never see the kind of horrors that our camera crews, reporters and producers see. Mark Brayne for the DART Centre for Journalism and Trauma, Europe Director. Tell us what your analysis is showing after Beslan, after Nick Berg, after the horror of those beheading pictures coming in and the impact on the staff in particular there in the newsroom?

Mark Brayne: We've had some discussion in the last couple of years, and the culture is changing in journalism significantly to understand the impact on practitioners of the trauma that is witnessed. And what the events of the last three months or so have really brought home is that trauma and emotional distress is not only a risk that people are exposed to who are only present in the field. We've drawn up, on the basis of some discussions and with help from NBC and BBC and others, some draft guidelines on how newsrooms and editorial staff and backroom staff might deal with these issues because it's rather like radiation and people should have these guidelines on their chairs. Like radiation exposure to trauma should be limited to the minimum number of people that need to be involved with it to make sure that they're supported appropriately. If their dosimeter is flashing red that they get the support they need.

Nik Gowing: How does the dosimeter flash red? How do you know someone is traumatised?

Mark Brayne: It's not rocket science, there are many ways of understanding when people are showing signs of stress, they might not know it themselves, individuals that are being exposed to this kind of trauma don't understand what's happening. They may be sleeping badly, they mat be drinking more, they may be extremely irritable, they may be experiencing physical symptoms. In the newsroom there hasn't been a culture of understanding of how this is linked in to the work we do. You said journalists were the first responders and we are the last first responder profession after police, military and medical services to understand how we need to look after our own staff.

Nik Gowing: Are we being very naïve and complacent and almost negligent in understanding how fundamental this process is for the welfare of our staff whether they are staff or freelancers?

Mark Brayne: I think it is changing. I wouldn't use words like naïve and complacent, I think of the known unkowns these unkowns are becoming known! There's dramatic change at Reuters, BBC, CNN and NBC and other organisations to understand that you really can do something. Culture change is not about sending people off to counselling necessarily although that can be very helpful but it's about culture change in the workplace.

Nik Gowing: How fundamental, Sarah Ward-Lilley, Managing Editor, BBC News Gathering. What have you seen since we've had these revolting images of beheadings coming through?

Sarah Ward-Lilley: Picking up from what Mark said I think it's about the culture change and certainly people within my own organisation people are talking about it a lot more. Inevitably they were the most extreme pictures most people had seen and a lot of people were asking us as managers to stop them being exposed to these pictures and there were big debates that have been mentioned here today about whether there should be any censorship or that kind of thing. I think the key thing back in the newsroom was to ensure that people took note of warnings that these pictures were coming, we tried to encourage people to take a break from their screens and to turn off extra monitors, so they weren't just seeing the pictures going round and round. Also we've organised a lot of sessions for people to come and talk, as Mark said counselling is a long way down the path, that is available to people. But a lot of people simply want to know that the feelings they're having aren't odd or peculiar or only belonging to them and we've organised informal lunch time sessions for people to come and talk, it is not a touchy-feely huggy thing it's a case of saying I experienced this, is that normal, will it go away and realising that all their colleagues around them have also shared those feelings. And they're feeling bad about and some are feeling different and we've got a full range.

Nik Gowing: Have you got a full calibration of how badly this has affected some people?

Sarah Ward-Lilley: We don't other than the culture is changing and people are talking about it, I think that's the key. Our confidential counselling service which is the supporting end of this is just that, confidential. We don't know who's been and we don't ask to find out who's been but I think the fact that we're talking about it, managers are taking it seriously, there's been a step change in the last three to six months about it.

Nik Gowing: OK, I'll ask other people about their experiences but can I go to Australia where Brian Donald who is actually the NBC Picture Editor and one of the very few people who has been willing to talk to us openly and publicly about what you experienced when you were editing this stuff and you've seen some pretty dreadful stuff in your time. Thanks for joining us, I know you're on holiday and thank you for breaking that holiday I hope you are enjoying your break. Tell us what it has been like, explain the process that you went through when suddenly you saw this dreadful stuff arriving?

Brian Donald: I think the first video that really shocked me was the Nick Berg video and I think we had to watch for 8 or 9 minutes, this man preparing for his death. The first occasion we had no warning of what we were going to see and I know that some people left the room but because we were watching it on AP, then on Reuters and Eurovision there was no getting away from it. At that point you couldn't turn down any monitors and the images were everywhere. I think the problem for the people in our office was that it wasn't just the battle-hardened veterans, editors, the like, who know that we have to deal with these kinds of images - it was the juniors as well, it was the people archiving who were seeing these beheadings time and time again. So it was all the way down from the top to the most junior people in our bureau.

Nik Gowing: How did you cope with it yourself?

Brian Donald: I had bad dreams and I would leave the room, I would realise that these were pictures we couldn't use and I would leave the room when one of these beheadings was coming in. I know that ultimately somebody had to watch them and I would go back in and watch them but initially I would walk out, there's a beheading coming in I don't want to see it.

Nik Gowing: Mark Brayne, how do you manage that?

Mark Brayne: On the list of guidelines one of things we're proposing is if material is not going to be broadcast then why distribute it to start with? If it needs to be seen by only a small number of people then make it a small number of people and then only look at it once and archive the rest.

Nik Gowing: OK, that's a management problem but what about that, you worked in psychotherapy as well, when you hear Brian's response, walking away, dreams and nightmares?

Mark Brayne: Talking about it appropriately with colleagues, normalising the process as Sarah said is the single most important thing...

Nik Gowing: How do you normalise it?

Mark Brayne: You normalise it by recognising that this is a normal human adaptive response to distress, we are programmed to process distress. It's a bit like when you're wounded. When you witness trauma and extreme violence there is a physiological effect deep down in the brain and the brain needs to process that and the way it processes that is by not denying, you don't need to indulge it we have a job to do but the thing that really helps is being witnessed and recognised and helped to feel safe in the experience of distress, whether it's nightmares or sweating or palpitations which is an absolutely normal response to trauma and in the norm it gets better over about four weeks that how long it takes.

Nik Gowing: To quote Chris again going home, getting drunk, getting laid and coming back on Monday morning is that a way out of it?

Mark Brayne: For some people it probably is but I wouldn't recommend it as a universal strategy, if it works for you that's great! But if it doesn't then talk to your mates , talk to your managers and come out with it in a way that's safe for you and if it persists and if you're really struggling and it's not just watching pictures its being exposed to other forms of trauma in the news business it's ok to get help, this is not a life sentence.

Nik Gowing: Brian, how did you manage this, you've talked about the nightmares but how did you cope? I'm not going to ask you what you did that weekend but you know what I mean.

Brian Donald: Actually talking about talking to colleagues when the issues were raised and I would talk to editors, other people in the control room and people on the newsdesk, once we got over the macho 'this is what we do' people were quite willing to sit down and talk about it and discuss it and there were a lot of people who surprised me by how affected by it they were as well. So there was a joint feeling in our office of what we were all going through and just being able to talk about it and share it with our managers. I'd just like to make a point, I realise that this is what we do, we always have to deal with images that other people don't want to see and if it's an act of war, terrorism, plane crash, we deal with that every day, that's an event but these are different, they're at a totally different level. So I'm not talking about the normal acts of violence that we see.

Nik Gowing: Can I just go to SWL one more time please, because Sarah, there is something that's been pioneered by the Royal Marines just building on what Mark was saying, a way of handling this.

Sarah Ward-Lilley: Well, Mark's helped with the training but the BBC is adopting a system, for want of a better word, that the Marines use on the bases, as our colleague was just saying if you can get over the macho bit, if the Marines can do it and talk about what they've experienced then we're sure that BBC journalists will. It's a case of when there's been a very traumatic incident either in the field or the exposure back in London we can offer for a group of people to get together and a group of people in the BBC are currently being trained up so it's self-help. Someone usually from another department will lead a discussion and it's a very structured conversation, it's very factual; again, no touchy-feely stuff and we simply go through a list of questions about what people were thinking about before, during and after an incident. We score them and it's all very open - they can see what they've scored and then if they if they score over a certain amount which shows that they have experienced some trauma we go back and talk to them 28 days or a month later and if they're still scoring highly we then discuss with them the idea of getting some professional help. It's very simple self-help within the workplace, it's something that managers can do and staff can do amongst themselves.

Nik Gowing: This for a major news organisation, I remember last year when we were talking about guns and security contractors there were several voices from the Dutch, the Finns, the Swedes saying we don't have anything like that, we can't afford it. Does anyone here want to say 'we can't get involved in this but we're seeing the same stuff, but how do we do this - we don't have the money.

Sarah Ward-Lilley: This isn't costly.

Nik Gowing: The person at the back please.

Unidentified: It's not an issue about the money. I'm just suggesting that we go back to the distribution of this material. Because what we have in most of our newsrooms is, this material comes in and a reporter and a video editor at a minimum and probably a programme editor at least three, possibly four people will have to witness this stuff and decide at which point to stop the tape and not continue any further once it gets to the really gory part because most of us aren't broadcasting this. So I'm going back to the point about whether agencies should be distributing this and whether we should be taking it up to the full point of beheadings. Now I know this has been raised in the Eurovision group and there has been this question about censorship and we shouldn't be censoring this material. However I do feel that all of us delegate a certain editorial responsibility to Reuters and APTN every day of the week about the material that they edit and send to us. And I would be interested to hear if anyone else feels that that is the point we should be looking for, a stop at the point where we're just not going to broadcast the stuff - so why subject all these people to looking at it?

Nik Gowing: Nigel Baker, APTN.

Nigel Baker: Obviously when Nick Berg was executed it was an experience that I don't think anybody had had to deal with before and we agonised and we put the video out in full on the basis that broadcasters around the world say that they want to make that judgement. We feel it's right to distribute the video if it's deemed news worthy but we stop before the point of death. Obviously this can still be extremely distressing and how we manage that internally is to have strict guidelines to give people as much advance notice, warn people that it's very graphic material. How we deal with it ourselves is to isolate the material as it is coming in or being transmitted, we blank all monitors and do it from a discreet area. Obviously we have to give that to customers and we hope that the lead time we give people is enough to do that but that's obviously the way that we've found with dealing with it that there is still a demand from a large number of broadcasters to be able to see a representation of at least a portion of that video, but we've set up strict guidelines to hopefully limit as far as possible some of the worst aspects by giving people detailed and graphic warnings and managing that process.

Nik Gowing: What about Beslan, people being shot dead live? It could have happened during the Gulf War, the challenge of that coming over the horizon, it's coming ever closer.

Nigel Baker: I think that's a very difficult one to answer. If you see that situation occurring in graphic detail then the ability to cut away exists. I don't think there's an easy answer to that.

Stephen Claypole: Just very quickly, I'd like to go back to the Paul Taggart experience. We're a very small organisation with a limited budget but we found that there was help from a very surprising official place, the FBI sent somebody along and we had two members of staff who were traumatised and the FBI arranged for counselling.

Nik Gowing: Mark, final word before we finish the session: are there some in this room who are in denial about this, who say it's not a problem anybody working in the newsroom should be tough as old boots or young boots and should be able to put up with this stuff, otherwise they shouldn't be in the business.

Mark Brayne: Denial is not only a river in Egypt as we know! Yes there is still an issue in newsrooms....

Nik Gowing: Hang on, you're being very diplomatic - what do you really mean by that?

Mark Brayne: I mean that some people have still got to get the message, it's like safety, ten years ago very few people were doing the safety and hostile environment training that we now take absolutely for granted in all of the main broadcasters and news organisations through most of the industrialised world. And I think the same is going to happen on the emotional front and as I said, it's not rocket science, and as Sarah said, it's not costly and gradually people will understand it's not just about looking after people - it's about good journalism, it's about keeping your teams working well, reporting well and doing that for a longer period.

Nik Gowing: Thank you Brian, thank you Brian Whitman just before we go Chris Cramer, President of INSI.

Chris Cramer: Nik, there's one really important take-away from this session that needs to be re-stated and I don't want to embarrass our colleague from Australia or Stephen Claypole who's now left but I'd like people to consider it. Given their two instances it is my considered view that it's not possible to go into Iraq any longer without security, proper security. Without planning how you travel around Baghdad, how you travel from A to B. I'm not at all surprised at the level of sophistication of the people who stop vehicles, how they reconnoitre out journalists, how they Google people and how they check their journalism and I don't think anybody in this room or at this conference should be surprised at that level of sophistication. The game is really in Iraq, we've had to send freelancers who have turned up unexpectedly thinking they were going to work for CNN straight back to Oman where they came from within a few hours of arriving there. And we shouldn't be at all surprised at that level of sophistication. So I don't mean to embarrass our colleagues but we shouldn't leave this conference without realising that.

Nik Gowing: Well, we've got 36 hours to work out a new model a new paradigm a new way of thinking and maybe other sessions can begin to encourage. Can I thank you all, I hope this has shown you the way things are moving no matter how horrific it is. I think we should remember those who died this year, just remind ourselves as we did at the Rory Peck Trust Awards last week and after the roll of honour Alberto Romagnoli of RAI will introduce the Rory Peck Sony Impact Award Winner.