News Xchange 2003: Session Transcripts 6 november 2003 All Session Transcripts Session 5:  DEBATE ON KEY SAFETY ISSUES Nik Gowing (BBC World): Thank-you Chris. We have decided to dramatically change in many ways what we were going to do this afternoon simply because of what we heard this morning. Particularly the words of Brian Whitman when he said "the United States will control the battle space, it has to" he added, "when there are civilians we have to be sure that in no way do they compromise the battlefield". At the moment journalists are civilians and non-combatants. Secondly let's pick up from where Jeremy Greenstock ended his interview with Christiane earlier, he made two very important points in 40 seconds and we have decided to pick up on those points immediately, about protection and the level of protection. Not just for those of us, like myself who work for the largest news organisations in the world but those of you who are here are also from the much smaller organisations who face financial privations and so on. What kind of protection can you have? Let's just listen to what Jeremy Greenstock told us from Baghdad a couple of hours ago. (runs tape) Measures do have to be taken even by visiting journalists but at what cost? You heard from the Chris experience of CNN on April 13th, that Sunday morning in Tikrit, those of us like me in Qatar watched it open-eyed and amazed at what we were seeing on the double video phone but it opened a Pandora's box. We've heard what Chris has said, there is a long chapter in this great book. What I'd like to do is remind you of the dilemma that CNN with Brent and Will from AKE who was travelling with them what happened that morning and the dilemma they faced when they came under fire. (runs videotape) So that's the issue we are going to address in this first half at least. But we were planning to also address other issues so let me just take you through what is also on the agenda between now and 5.15. The safety session on new realities. Other things we want to address, at the issue of targeting by friendly forces especially the United States and the Israeli military, we hope to be joined by Raanan Gissen who will have an interesting response to our concerns in our business from the IDF point of view. Can modified laws of war offer better protection; the issue of the Geneva conventions, and the issue of the International Criminal Court who has signed up to them, can they be changed, we will be hearing from Geoffrey Robertson the leading human rights QC. Non-combatant status, can we maintain the status if we are moving towards armed protection however that is defined. And that surely is the central issue for the next half an hour at least. When is that line crossed? Read in that book what Brent Sadler said, he says "I know I will be criticised for the fact that our assistant from AKE opened up with a full clip of 27 bullets but in the end we had to take a decision on the ground at that time". And the additional element to that, some of you will have seen this? Just remind those of you who haven't seen this that this is now available from Basra, armed personal protection armed convoy escort that is available as an agency in Basra. And finally the last couple of points as well, at the military's complaint, we heard it briefly from Chris Vernon this morning. That media ignorance is a central issue in the way we work in many of these areas, whether it be a Iraq or one of these other areas of peace support, peace keeping operations short of war. The problem of our business, do we understand modern war-fighting and modern military operations? And finally the issue of stress and trauma, in many ways fighting the war in Iraq was easy when it came to stress and trauma compared to what we are now going through in a place like Iraq, or Colombia we will hear from, or Sri Lanka or many of these other areas. Let me though return now to the issue of Brent Sadler and CNN, some of you may have strong views and my instructions are to open it out to all of you this afternoon. Too many of you were too passive in the views of those sitting in the control room, it is for you to join the debate, there is nothing prescriptive, yes we do have feeds but is is all part of a discussion and we want to move the discussion forward. First of all Eason Jordan can I just ask you for your view of the event into Crete six months on and the Pandora's box it has opened? Eason Jordan (CNN): I would have had at least five or six dead colleagues if it had not been for the defensive action that was taken and I very much regret that we find it essential at times to put armed protection into the field but Iraq is not the first place it has happened, we faced that in Somalia, we face that in Afghanistan on a few occasions and I have no regrets whatsoever that defensive action was taken to keep our colleagues alive because it I have no doubt given the gunfire involved that I would have attended many funerals this year had it not been for that action taking place. Nik Gowing: Do you believe that your organisation crossed the line and also crossed the line for many in our business? The assumption now that many will be travelling up the road and we will be carrying armed guards as well even if we are not? Eason Jordan: I am sympathetic to the concern and I share the concern but Nick I'm not prepared to lose colleagues unnecessarily and we are going to do everything we can within reason to keep them alive. We have armed guards at our headquarters, we have armed guards at some of our bureaux and on a rare rare occasions I believe it is absolutely legitimate and justifiable to put armed protection into the field. Nik Gowing: Okay Eason thank you. Andy Kane your company was with them what you do you take of it now six months on? Andy Kane (AKE): Six months on I regret that we had to do that but I have no regrets that we were prepared to do that, it is a complex issue. I believe there are some situations where it is necessary to have armed guards, Afghanistan, Somalia and northern Iraq I would put into that category. And I would draw the distinction that you are in effect hiring the local authority the PUK, DKP in northern Iraq were effectively the local authorities. Now, when it comes down other issues on the ground we do not as a matter of course have people armed. We have a very well-trained people and the last thing want to do is to have them armed on the ground but there are certain situations where it is absolutely necessary to have some armed protection or you don't go. Nik Gowing: If a client comes to you and says, "I want your assistance", do they insist that you have a clause which says "yes you will be armed", "no you won't be armed", is it clear? Andy Kane: It is very clear from our point of view when you talk to clients about the risk and then they make the decision, they go round the corporate level to make the decision whether they go and follow that advice. We do not have a policy, and the last thing we want to his have armed guards on the ground because there are clearly other situations when arms being present endangers the journalist. Nik Gowing: But you give advice? Andy Kane: Yes we give advice Nik Gowing: Are there news corporation's large and small who reject your advice on weapons? Andy Kane: Not generally, no. Nik Gowing: What do you normally advise for Iraq at the moment? Andy Kane: We do not as a matter of course carry weapons. Nik Gowing: Fine. Tim Lambon, you have just come back from Baghdad, or what have you take about what you're seeing among the news organisations large, medium and small. How many are carrying guns? Tim Lambon (Channel 4 News): well, I have to take issue with AKE and Centurion, their people are carrying weapons regularly, for CNN, for the BBC on certain runs and four other organisations like ABC and NBC. Certainly two of the American organisations in the last two months have had armed contact on the Baghdad to Oman road and injuries to the bandits are unknown at at this stage. And as far as I can ascertain from the people who actually pulled the trigger they were initiated by the security advisers who are now travelling as a matter of course with these things. Nik Gowing: What you know about what happened on the road to Oman twice? Tim Lambon: There were situations where a fast vehicle usually up a black BMW would arrive with a fast moving convoy. The convoys work with to armed vehicles one at the front and one at the rear both with armed guards in them and then you would have at the soft vehicles in between. These vehicles would take action to try and cut off any vehicles that are trying to insert themselves into the convoy and stop anybody. And on two occasions when vehicles have pulled up alongside to take a look or to try and insert themselves into the convoy shots have been fired. Nik Gowing: Any questions asked as far as you know? Tim Lambon: In terms of the military? Nik Gowing: In terms of any questions........... Tim Lambon: There is a tacit understanding as far as I can find out from the authorities, the CPA, that if anything happened it is just self-protection and self defence. So that is not a problem. As far as I'm no they haven't been any deaths but I'm sure, certainly the people that pull the trigger have said that there have been injuries. Marcus Wilford (ABC): Can I just interrupt, I was in one of the two convoys I think you mention that was attacked. ABC has about 20 staff, non Iraqi and about 20 Iraqi staff in Baghdad. We have armed security, we are open about it, the security is not visibly armed and we do use pilgrims in fact to escort us on the most missions outside our office. And the most missions in-and-out, with weapons usually a long and short as they call it. On one of the convoys that I was in we were attacked the shots were fired at by a blue BMW, first of all, and our security returned fire. We didn't hang around to find out what had happened. We presented a report to the United States military and the words of the US military officer which surprised me at the time were "outstanding", and I think that gives you a sense of what the US military response is, "you news organisations should take care of yourselves and if you do with the problem that is a good thing", I don't necessarily agree with that point of view. The British CPA official's reaction was do you realise you just escalating the situation, the next time you're attacked somebody will just come at you with AK's and RPG's and you won't be able to fire back. I think both responses are right and I think that that is our dilemma. Nik Gowing: What calculations have you made though Marcus when it comes to that, the very central issue not just for ABC but for every car every vehicle maybe containing journalists who go down that road and are about to be attacked by bandits, do those bandits assume that you are armed? Marcus Wilford: We haven't made the calculation for every journalists and I don't think we are able to. We are making a calculation for ourselves and our people and I think that that is a responsible thing we have to do. Andy Kane: Can I just come back on that, we agonise long and hard about this whole issue. And the issue was of convoys, getting people in. That convoys were being attacked for basic robbery and with lots of violence and we looked at all the issues of going in, of travelling in by air, we went to the extent of minimising the convoys and using very aggressive driving techniques to get those convoys through. And we do have people armed on the convoys only with a short weapons but we do make very clear distinctions as to when and under what circumstances we do it. We would minimise convoys down to the very least we can to remove that risk. When there is a clear way to get in by air we shift to that. Nik Gowing: I just want to get a sense of who else is arming at the moment. Wolfgang, head of news from Reuters. Wolfgang Waehner-Schmidt (Reuters Television): The policy at Reuters still is that we do not use armed guards we do however have armed guards to protect our office the same as Eason said for the CNN office. Nik Gowing: How long do you think you can maintain that line? Wolfgang Waehner-Schmidt: it remains to be seen, we are permanently reviewing and at the moment the situation is that we do not want to change the policy in general but the first step has been taken by putting armed guards in front of the Bureau. Tim Lambon: I just wanted to come back to Marcus from ABC's point that they were being responsible to their own people. Yes, you might have been responsible to your own people but the other side is that I am also one of the people on the ground and if my company decides that I don't have armed guards when I go in, there are only two choices, is I going unarmed or I don't go in at all, and that is not an option. So by taking armed guards and by loosing off at what ever threat they might be at some stage, whether that threat first fired at you or whether you fired at it first pre-emptively means that I am now under a much deeper threat by going in there. And I have to say that I was actually on one of these convoys when we were held up, Linsey Hilsum and I were held up at gun point on the Oman to Baghdad road about two and a half months ago and the situation was that two guys with guns pulled up in a vehicle in front of us and it took about $4000 and a phone off of us. A very scary experience but we are reasonably experienced people we have been held up in many places in Africa so we went on and got on with it. We still do not carry armed guards Nik Gowing: Do you understand what Marcus is saying? Tim Lambon: Yes, but I think it is irresponsible. He says that he can only be responsible for his own people and we are very sorry about the rest of the world and I think that that is an irresponsible attitude. Nik Gowing: Bill Wheatley, NBC, what is your policy? Bill Wheatley (NBC): We use armed guards in a number of situations particularly now in Iraq. We do it cautiously and not every assignment necessarily has an armed guard along, we try to the best of our ability to keep the profile down in terms of the guards. Sometimes it's not really apparent that they are armed guards. Having said all that it is a big dilemma it is not something we do enthusiastically, we are aware of some of the concerns that Tim has expressed. Nik Gowing: What is your answer to them? Bill Wheatley: In the end our answer is that we feel we have to protect our people. We are there to get the story and regrettably sometimes that requires protection for our people and that is why we do it. Nik Gowing: Do you except though that you have probably raised the the barrier, you have raised the threshold for everyone now? Bill Wheatley: I think that is true. Nik Gowing: Do you feel uncomfortable about that? Bill Wheatley: Yes, on the other hand I think that the alternative would be in a number of instances not to cover the story which I would also feel very uncomfortable about. Nik Gowing: would your staff not going if they did not have the protection you have just described? Bill Wheatley: I think it depends on the individual, some might. Nik Gowing: Nigel Baker of APTN, what is your policy? Nigel Baker (APTN): As a general principle as a company we are against having armed guards, we have talked about it repeatedly to our people on the ground in Baghdad, both the international and the local staff are against having armed guards. And I think there are two fundamental reasons which is the surrendering of the observer status and being seen to become a participant and also the escalation argument that Marcus was talking about, that if it is known you carry weapons then people will come at you with a larger weapons. And in time if they want to attack you the logical conclusion is that you go there with your own tanks in the end. Obviously that is a far-fetched scenario but you are in danger of escalating the way that arms are used in relation to journalism. Nik Gowing: Are you fearful of the position taken by NBC and ABC and the precedent being set? Nigel Baker: Obviously this has been discussed among news organisations, they have made their own decisions I am concerned that obviously it is raising the temperature. Nik Gowing: What pressure from your staff both ways? Nigel Baker: I have to say that the pressure from my staff has been to remain unarmed in the face of other organisations arming. And these are experienced people who have travelled to war zones around the world and are very concerned about the precedents it sets. Nik Gowing: Can I just say that this is not a cosy chat among the executives at a round here. Vaughan did you want to come in. Vaughan Smith (Frontline Club): Interestingly there are two photographers who carried pistols in northern Iraq because they had lost confidence in their organisations and the way they are supporting them in terms of safety. They justify it by saying "well we can't afford an armed guard so we will carry pistols", I think that is a slippery slope. I think essentially we are making a substantial mistake in understanding what we are doing here. I would make the assertion that there is a mortal risk and it is inescapable part of our work and any safety policy based on the idea that no story is worth the life of a journalist offers no way forward. And only then can we begin to professionalise and Industry and get some proper safety measures that are going to do some good rather than the sort of safety correctness that we are going down now and this confusion on trying to hire people to protect us which I think is a slippery slope. Nik Gowing: Vaughan, thank you. I am going to go to Soraya Janin who is from Colombia who is here with the Reuters Foundation. She lives under armed guard in Colombia. Soraya Yanine (RCN): I live with guards right now because security officials in Colombia were able to determine that the FARC, the guerrilla group, revolutionary forces of Colombia were planning to kidnap my two children and forced me to hide a bomb in my car and park it in the Ministry of Defence building complex where I perform my reporting every day. The plan was to murder me inside the vehicle and use the car to carry out a terrorist attempt against the Minister of Defence. Nik Gowing: How comfortable do you feel about this though, the principle of what you're doing to keep yourself alive. Soraya Yanine: I feel comfortable but I would like to be without bodyguards. Nik Gowing: do you understand the debate that is happening here among the large news organisations, what advice would you give? Soraya Yanine: well I need right now to have bodyguards but if I was in at a conflict zone I would rather not have armed guards because I think it would be dangerous for my crew and for me. Nik Gowing: Chris Cramer CNN. Chris Cramer (CNN): Nick, I'm trying to avoid some of the breathtaking kant that I have heard in the last few minutes. This is not a rubicon, we have not crossed a line. This is a slippery slope for reasons that I thought I had articulated earlier on today. We are whether we like it or not legitimate targets around the world. This slope is extremely steep and extremely slippery. I am burdened with a very long memory, I signed invoices for BBC armed guards at least 15 years ago when I was at the BBC. So let's avoid kant here, there a lot of our colleagues in Iraq using armed security and their bosses don't know. They are playing a armed security and their bosses don't know. Nik Gowing: What are their expenses saying? Chris Cramer: They don't come to me because we know because we signed the invoices. We have a policy you've heard the policy and that is that on rare occasions we do travel with armed security. This is not a dynamic between rich American broadcasters and the rest of the world it is a dynamic within the industry, we are targets. We need to except that issue, debate it and move on. Jonathan Munro (ITN): Just to say that we are operating without armed guards in Baghdad and I take on and endorse all of Tim and Nigel Baker's points. We have got perhaps the opposite experience to the one that Eason was talking about with the Brent Sadler incident in Tikrit in that the tragic loss of our team in southern Iraq on the first day of a war has obviously it scarred our experiences. They obviously were not armed. From what we know of the course of events on that road which isn't and never will be an entire picture but we are pretty clear on who was in which vehicle and who opened fire now. I really fear that if we had opened fire back we would have lost all of our team. As it is we are thankful and grateful that one of them did come out alive and was able to tell us the full story. We are not without hope that the other two will be found alive but that is obviously extremely slim now but I do believe that if we had engaged armed guards on that occasion all of the team would have been lost on the road and Daniel Demoustier would not be back with his family. Adrian van Klaveren (BBC): The BBC's policy and we work with the pilgrims in Iraq is at this stage our policy is not to be armed in terms of armed escorts on the air on the move but we are in fact armed in terms of what we've got actually outside a building. And that is the policy that we are operating with pilgrims. What I would say it though echoing Chris' point and that is that we would never say never on this, it is something that we have actively discussed in terms of what we should do and there has been pressure from our staff on both points of view on this and there are great divisions there. But what I think the danger of this debate is though is that we lose sight of some of the other things we should be doing, some of the other things we should be thinking about to try and protect security. Especially thinking about what sort of vehicles have we got, how good are they, how could our armoured vehicles, where exactly are we going, how much are we thinking about the route which we go down and I think the danger is, if we go too fast down the route of saying it well let's be armed what we do is lose sight of some of the other really basic safety principles. What routes we used in and out, how we actually trained our people, what equipment we used, what vehicles were travelling and that the area that I think we still need to keep sight of. Because we can do far more there to protect ourselves I suspect than overall by saying well let's be armed because I agree that can make things in some cases worse. Nik Gowing: Does anyone want to pick up on that particular point about a much broader reissue, we are actually far too narrow on the issue that we are talking about. Tim Lambon (Channel 4 News): One of the things that I just wanted a point out in this entire debate is that this is a very Anglophone thing. If you start talking to the Continental broadcasters, the Spanish, the French, Germans I think you'll find that most of them do not in fact send a lot of their people are going to these war zones on hostile environment courses. They are certainly not travelling with armed guards. Nik Gowing: Okay, rather than you speaking for them let's try and get a view from Spanish television. Juan Valentin (Telecinco): Okay, I was in Baghdad during war I never saw anybody with bodyguards there. And I just arrived from Baghdad three weeks ago and I can see that many many of the beak major British Americans have bodyguards now. Nik Gowing: And what about you? Juan Valentin: I don't have any bodyguards. Nik Gowing: is that your policy or is it because it is something you don't want? Juan Valentin: It is our policy first, it is also really expensive. From my point of view as a journalist on the street every day I don't want to have a gun, under civilian, a journalist I'm not a military and I don't want to become a target because I have a gun. If someone tried to put a rifle on on me I would show them my camera and tell them that I was Spanish, I'm not Iraqi, not American I am not British I am just a journalist. So it is my arm, or if I have begun the others can shoot me. Nik Gowing: Do you think your position that has been weakened or made more vulnerable by the likes of NBC and ABC who have now set a precedent so the assumption is that many journalists are now armed, or at least their vehicles? Juan Valentin: As that guy said, it not French, not German, not Spanish it is only the British and Americans journalists have had bodyguards in Iraq. Nik Gowing: Let's underlined this difference. Arnim Stauth. Arnim Stauth (WDR/ARD): We haven't got a written policy at ARD but we had guards in the house that we rented in Basra for example, we did not have any guards when we travelled around. We had for example guards when we worked in Chechenia or Afghanistan. I think it makes sense in situations when you have the experience that the presence of an armed guard which usually was then local could deter any attacks it is not meant for really being used and sometimes we had the impression that just showing that there is a guy around with a gun makes it more safe but of course I see the point that if you build up weapons in your hands that the other side will escalate as well. And I think it's a very difficult decision and every visual situation has to be taken into account and decide on the spot what to do. Nik Gowing: What is your personal view, if you found yourself say, in Iraq at the moment, knowing that some journalistic organisations are using armed guards and you don't have one? Arnim Stauth: I think I would not take one within two days that could change but I would never judged to General. Nik Gowing: N o s at the back? (Unidentified Speaker) NOS: Our policy is of course not have armoured guards just because of the fact that it costs too much, we can't afford it so we don't even discuss it it's very simple! Nik Gowing: you don't even discuss it? NOS: No there is no way that we could ever afford it it would cost too much, that is the disadvantage of coming from a small country. And the question that I have especially to all of these experts here. N o s was in a convoy two years ago in Afghanistan and four of the people in that convoy were taken out of their cars and executed. If there were arms in our convoy with that have saved four of our colleagues lives? Nik Gowing: Chris Kramer I'm going to come back to you because at news exchange last year in Ljubljana you made a point in your opening speech of saying, "if you can't afford security, get out of the business". Chris Cramer: Well I would hate to accuse you of misquoting me but she just have. What I said it was, "if you can't afford to pay for safety, get out of the business". And our colleagues from NOS respectfully raises a fascinating point, where you draw the line at what you can afford and what you can't afford? Can you afford safety training? Can you afford flak jackets? Can you afford armoured vehicles? And then can you afford armed security? And if there are colleagues, and unsure there aren't and I'm sure that it no less do not do this. If we are sending colleagues to war zones unprotected, untrained we should be ashamed of ourselves. Tony Donovan (Reuters): I think we decided that as an industry back in Somalia that we would use armed guards and the reality is that we were using technicals and we were using ill-disciplined local militias to do that. So it seems to me this is an issue of degree, it is not whether the industry will use armed guards its whether we should in Iraq, which is the current subject of the debate. And that surely begs were think is the key question and that is when next? And what are we going to do about acting like a community so that we don't find ourselves subject to the lowest common denominator that the next location a single organisation will decide unilaterally to hire guards creating a situation for all of us that we then become targets because the anticipation is that we are armed. Side don't think it's about whether or not we will arm ourselves clearly we will is the situation determines it but can we act as a group and prevent this degree of unilateralism which are think is the most dangerous aspect of the whole thing. Nik Gowing: I want to now go to Anne Cooper from the Committee to Protect Journalists from New York. And what is your view as you sit back and you watch your many reports you had to write this year about issues on security when you hear this pretty split debate? Ann Cooper (CPJ): Well, this debate has been going on for a couple of years and there is a real schizophrenia I think in the discussion. On the one hand organisations are doing a much better job, those who can afford it, of sending their journalists for hostile environment training, or for giving them the proper equipment they need in the field. They are saying, or "the safety of our journalists is paramount", you know that line "no story is worth dying for". Yet now it we see this use of armed guards which we believe it does send a message that journalists are not necessarily neutral observers here. I guess I would ask this question. There is supposed to be some further discussion here today about the Geneva conventions and possibly changing them to give journalists special status, journalists are already protected under the Geneva conventions as civilians. If there is an incident where you are, you're news team is out there with armed guards and they opened fire and there is a battle, are you civilians? Should the CPJ be arguing on your behalf saying that you were simply civilians there if you are using armed guards who opened fire? Nik Gowing: Anne thank you, it raises the question of what Brian Whitman meant by "civilians". Rodney Pinder from the International News Safety Institute, at the meeting last night you more or less said what line do you want us to take in the Institute, have we begun to clarify that at all? Rodney Pinder (INSI): I think there was some clarification in that we discovered that we were completely split rather like this audience. There is no right or wrong answer for this, there is no one view on this. Nik Gowing: So where do we go? Rodney Pinder: I think what we are learning it is out of this debate is that safety training is probably going to save more lives and observation of that safety training is going to save more lives than armed guards. If you look at the dead in Iraq for example would armed guards have saved any of them? Whereas you could argue that proper safety training and proper observation of that training might well have done. Car accidents continued to claim that more lives than they should in profession like ours. And so what we want to do is to recognise that there is a debate, there are people passionately for safety who support armed guards and people passionately for safety who do not and argue very strongly against it. This argument is going to go along that we shouldn't lose sight of the overall issues that a killing journalists today and armed guards really don't come into it. 90% of journalists killed are killed in their own countries covering their own domestic stories and being targeted by shadow elements which include their own "security forces". Nik Gowing: Well let me just raise that with Najid Bula who did that remarkable footage from Masar y Sharif. Najid Bula when you hear this discussion what you think? In the end you can never have armoured protection apart from someone you pick up who is carrying a gun? Najubullah Qureishi: Everybody knows about my country it is very difficult for every journalist, especially for local journalists in Afghanistan. I have journalists that don't support the government but he can go and work for another leader or commander, he can't broadcast any true thing. If the commander kills people and if the journalist says that he has killed people then he is dead, it is dangerous. Nik Gowing: Do you appreciate the debate going on here between very rich news organisations though? Is it relevant for a country like yours? Najubullah Qureishi: Yes, it is very difficult for my country, especially for the safety of journalists. I need to tell you about the foreign journalists in my country it is very difficult for them to know everything in my country. Nik Gowing: Let's now go to Salim Lone from the United Nations formerly in Baghdad. Salim you were there are on 19th August when the dreadful events happened. You've probably been listening to some of this debate but what is your reflection as you anguish over this problem in New York particularly after Mathiot sari concluded in his report two weeks ago about the deplorable assessments made by the United Nations on security. Salim Lone (United Nations, retired): Well just listening to all of you talk and and Matasari's report obviously, there is no compromising with safety of staff of the UN and journalists. There is always a risk element that will never go away but you have to balance the risk with what you're accomplishing. So safety is a crucial issue that Matasari's report revealed what we already knew that there were unforgivable failures in security by the UN hierarchy. But let me go back a little bit Nik and talk about the issue that is driving the lack of safety for all of us now. Which is that this is a terrible world and more and more international institutions, institutions like the media itself and the un are losing credibility. The West is comprehensively dominant in the world and an afraid especially in the Islamic world and I speak both as a UN person and as a Muslim and as a journalist. In the Islamic world even the most moderate Muslims have given up on thinking that these international so-called institutions as opposed to the West are actually doing anything to help them. And we must try to begin to address this and I think the media has to be in the forefront. Unless we begin to challenge some of the things that are going on in the world, unless the media itself addresses, tries to understand Muslim passions very genuine Muslim passions. Why so much of the Muslim world thinks that the media and the UN and Medecins sans Frontieres and the ICRC they see them as helping the West. Very few of them would actually take up arms but the point is that this general opinion of the most moderate Muslims is what gives the terrorists the fuel. And again when I use the word terrorists I am so conscious that we routinely used that word to describe actions by Muslims, a by suicide bombers. But we never use those terms when we report on actions which caused much more terror in the hearts and minds of Muslims. So we really have a big job to do, you can imagine that the credibility of the media when a suicide bomber kills 20 whether it is Israelis are Americans is lambasted as beyond the pale, uncivilised etc. While huge bombs which kill hundreds of innocent people, those are not described as terrorism. So we really have a problem and we in the media need to get to understand what these passions are. That's it will not substitute for security we must focus on security we must at same time begin to improve the credibility of neutral organisations, through actions not through publicity campaigns. Nik Gowing: Salim, you talk about the neutrality of organisations, or Marcus are you still there. Are we talking about something religious as the basis for the attack on your convoy or is it about banditry or opportunism? After what it Salim has just said? Marcus Wilford (ABC): I think in our case it was about banditry and it is often about banditry because we are rich targets clearly identifiable as rich targets carrying equipment money and all the rest of it and sometimes I think we flatter ourselves if we think it's just because we're journalists. I think there is also a wider proliferation in terms of security of which we are just a part. If you look at Iraq now a recent Financial Times study of the private security industry said there were more SAS working for private security firms in Iraq that there were actually in the SAS and that's probably true. This last remark is at my own expense I admit but I asked our producer in Baghdad today if there was anything I should bring up at this meeting today? And he said, "well one of the things we're having with private security is that they're taking a tapes and then not telling us which security firm they're with they are not responsible to anybody and we've got no way of getting back at them". Nik Gowing: Well that's an administrative matter. Salim, just before you go when you here that it's more about banditry than anything to do with Islam, are you sure you've got your assessment correct on this? Salim Lone: Well no, I'm pretty sure about the passions which drive Muslims because I was in Baghdad and there is an intense feeling that, let alone the UN, that the media is highly partisan in favour of the West and I don't think anybody would dispute that. Anybody who understands Muslims whether they are in Pakistan, India, Indonesia or in the Arab world knows that they feel that the media itself practice profound double standards. So I don't think that there is any doubt about that Nik. However while the media might not be specifically targeted as the ICRC and the un was, the fact is they are being targeted in small ways and we have to look to the future as well. We must address this issue. Nik Gowing: In the next 10 minutes what I want to do is find out whether we can get any kind of consensus here to take forward for people like Rodney and for Chris Cramer and for the INSI otherwise we will simply be reporting that there is a split Alessio Vinci (CNN): On the same thing that Salim was saying do you think that the US military is going to be ready to allow Alger sera journalists to go around with journalists as well. We are just assuming that the only people shooting at journalists are Iraqi resistance already won a call them. But what about friendly fire incidents are we going to have journalists, non American journalists responding against American forces just because they'd been shot at? Nik Gowing: We are going to come onto an issue related to that later Ryhope in the next hour. Omar Bec (Al Jazeera): I want to back up what my colleague just said. We have been told in Iraq itself that any cameraman of hours seen with a camera over his shoulder could be seen as a potential target and this was told by the American forces on the ground and a really after say to Alessio that if we were now to start hiring firms with Kalashnikov rifles or would ever or even if our reporters carried rifles this would definitely make our life much more hazardous. Nik Gowing: To defend yourself against the American lead forces? Omar Bec: Anybody! Earlier on in the session we were told by my colleague Ibrahim he lulled that countless times we have been harassed by the American forces on the ground for being there, covering just like CNN and ABC. And if we are going to start I assume having it done or a person defending us I'm sure that it will hinder us in the long run. Nik Gowing: I want to move on to the issues particularly related to the deaths of camera men like Mazen Dana. David Mannion (ITN): I don't think you will get a consensus Nik because I think views are passionately held on both sides of this. I agree with much of what rot Pinder said but I disagree when he says there are no right or wrongs in this. In my view there is a right and that is that journalists should remain unarmed and a matter what dangers we face. I'm sorry to take issue with Chris Cramer who I admire and I certainly wouldn't want to sit in judgment on what Brent Sadler did but in my judgement a rubicon on was crossed at that point and others have been crossed since. Once we allow ourselves to be armed we become combatants there cannot be any question about that and once we become combatants we cease to be what we are there for, what we are supposed to be which is neutral observers trying to do a job in very difficult circumstances in great danger. We choose to do that and if we allow ourselves to be armed the matter will escalate beyond which we can control and that is very very dangerous territory. Steve Anderson (ITV): It's really a question for Chris Cramer. I heard Chris at Edinburgh talk about the fact that he thinks that journalists have become legitimate targets and said it again today and he thinks that this is something we should be discussing and I agree with that. And I wonder what his own observation is, we've heard Salim from New York say that we are legitimate targets like the UN because we just ignore fundamental issues affecting the Arab world. There is the view that we are just rich targets so we are easy pickings for bandits. Is there also a question about if we are seen to be working so closely in hand with the military with embedded correspondents does that also legitimise journalists as targets in the eyes of some of the people who have been carrying out the attacks? I would just like Chris's view on that. Chris Cramer: That's a pretty easy question! Hang on, where shall I start! I'm indebted to my friend over here in as much as we flatter ourselves maybe in this issue. Listen! In the last few years for a variety of reasons there are some parts of the world, some factions who regard most people in this room as legitimate targets. Why? Probably for five or six different reasons. Some factions incorrectly identified us as being extensions of the state's or the administration's or the governments of the country's we live in. That's one reason. There are those factions who are dismayed and horrified by some journalism practised by some minority broadcasters and some minority members of the media and I suspect not represented in this room. In other words there are those organisations who choose to produce a certain type of journalism and I think we all suffer from that particular perspective. We are travelling ATM machines, with the possible exception of NOS, we largely have lot of money, we have many carloads of shiny silver boxes and very expensive cameras. We represent an opportunity for robbery. That's the third reason. The 4th reason is that the world has moved on that there are many viewpoints, many passions and I'm afraid to burst the bubble of people in this room but if anybody believes that we go into a war-zone with a halo around our head which says journalist you can't touch me we are incredibly naive and that was probably never the case. It is never been the case for the last five, 10 or 15 years. We are targets, there are many people who abhor what we do and what we represent. There are many parts of the world who find us irritants and want us out of their faces and there are many parts of the world that would like us dead. Those are the issues that we need to confront. Nik Gowing: We are going to confront them later in this session, Phil Harding from BBC. Phil Harding (BBC World Service): We've obviously got lot of staff spread across the world and we have obviously worked very closely with Adrian and his colleagues on news gathering. This clearly is very deep water and there clearly are a lot of difficult issues here. But I just wonder where this is heading. Armed guards, I wouldn't seek to judge those who do or don't use them, but where this is heading. Armed guards are sooner or later going to fire back and if they fire back sooner or later the going to hit people and if they hit people are going to hurt people and they're also going to kill people. And how would all of us feel as a group is that six year-old girl that we saw on Linsey Dawson's film this morning hadn't actually been hit by fire from the military but had actually been hit by fire from a military guard employed by one of the organisations here today. How would we feel about that as a group? Marcus said earlier on that he is not making decisions on behalf of all journalists but only on behalf of his journalists and literally that is true but I fear in the end actually Marcus you making decisions on behalf of all journalists. Nik Gowing: I would like to try and start bringing this to a close because there are the other five issues we want to raise. It just occurred to me that the issue of the effect both traumatically and psychologically on our colleagues who are with armed guards. Anthony Feinstein and Mark Brayne of the Dart Institute do you have a contribution about whether there is it psychosomatic or psychological reason for having armed guards to feel better? For journalists to feel more comfortable in their journalism and what they're doing? Mark Brayne (Dart Centre): I certainly wouldn't want to take a position either personally or on behalf of the Dart Institute as to whether this is right or wrong. But this does highlight the issue that we are soft skinned vulnerable human beings and I think that in any discussion about keeping journalist safe this has to be the premise from which any discussion continues. I agree completely with what Chris just said about the halo. Journalists have believed traditionally that we have a right to be there and we have a right to survive but the point is that we are extremely vulnerable and that these are complex decisions. And they have distinct psychological drivers in how we construct situations in which we do feel safe. Anthony Feinstein (University of Toronto): It is a very dangerous profession and we have good data to prove that and I just think the have to be careful that you don't compound it by making it worse. The rates of psychological distress are very high in journalists that have spent a long time in zones of conflict and you just have to be cautious that you don't exacerbate that. Prem Prakash (ANI): Would the security guards be able to fire back at the troops if they are attacked by the army from the other side? No. The tragedy perhaps in Iraq today is that the American and British journalists are, as Chris Cramer said himself, being seen as an extension of the state. We saw some recent tragic pictures when the American helicopter was brought down, the ordinary people that was seen from Iraq were celebrating the death of those people. Isn't it a fact now that instead of calling them bandits that perhaps the journalists are you are being attacked by Iraqis are identified today totally with the occupation forces and are therefore being attacked. And would the security guards ever be able to defend against attack by troops. I am speaking from an organisation which has lost two people, one only this year in my own country. I have 24 hour security at my house but I do not think that I would ever give guards to people in the field. Nik Gowing: Prem thank you. Bill Wheatley there was one case about three months ago when, I think his name was Claudio Cordone who works for Amnesty International, his father a former diplomat was driving up the road north of Baghdad with a driver and they were simply fired upon, a civilian car by the American military. Do you dread that kind of thing happening to those who are armed working for you? Bill Wheatley (NBC): Well first of all I dread it happening for those who aren't armed as well. This happens in war obviously and it is a dreadful thing but whether the fact on some occasions we might have armed escorts would attract the fire of others I think is debatable and I think it depends on what others were talking about here. It does strike me today it is interesting that it is the American and some British journalists here who are most likely to have been involved in having armed guards working for them and the that may in this present situation be a function of the fact that the Americans and British are seen as combatants. And maybe it is safer for journalists of other countries to operate if they can identify themselves as coming from other countries. So every situation could be a little different in that situation. Nik Gowing: Does anybody else want to add something to the debate and then I'm going to close it and we are going to move on two related issues. Margaret Ward (RTE): I think that we should be very careful about talking up a climate of fear, that we are being targeted. A think listening to Liz Palmer at this morning, she did not feel that at this point journalists were being targeted. I think we can scare ourselves into a situation that we are targets and therefore create a whole climate around ourselves of armed guards and fortress style occupation of shiny convoys and of lot a lot of people. And disconnect ourselves from the communities that people are working in. This may sound naive to you and it may sound easy because it's Ireland and we can wave a try Keller but I don't think we can I don't think we are unrealistic. I think we should listen very carefully to the agencies and the freelancers because across the bulk of the world not just Iraq they are the ones who take the biggest risks most of the time. They are the ones who've had the longest experience and in many cases they have evaluated it very well and we rely on them. I understand that for the Americans in particular at the moment there is a greater feeling of threat for them and that they may feel more of a target but we should be careful that we don't talk up this fear amongst ourselves. Nik Gowing: Just to put all of this in perspective joining us from New York is the Scandinavian journalist Asne Seierstad. As we have just been talking about at great length the issue of armed guards and armed protection particularly in Iraq. You have had a completely different experience Gowing as a freelance to Baghdad working for nobody, having nothing. Explain what she did and what she didn't have. Asne Seierstad (freelance journalist, Scandinavia): As I went in the beginning of January to Baghdad I never expected to stay for the whole war so that's why I never brought any flak jackets or helmets or things like that, gas masks. But as the war was approaching I was in the lucky situation that the Norwegian Embassy evacuated the city and they left gas masks enough for both me my translator and my driver. So I was actually the only one to provide these for for many also Iraqi people and also flak jackets and helmets so in the end I had all of the equipment. But out of pure luck more than very well planning. Nik Gowing: The broadcasters are you working for, did they insist on any kind of equipment as a condition for using you? Asne Seierstad: No they did not but also I never asked about it so it's hard for me to sit and criticise that I never asked for help. So I wonder if I didn't know in advance that I would get this equipment from the embassy and I got it three weeks before war started I might have tried to arrange it through one of the newspapers I worked for and I might have got it I might not. It's hard to say. Nik Gowing: I think many executives and those who have campaigned for hostile environment training and full equipment would be shocked by what she did, simply because there is an unwritten agreement that many broadcasters should never use material which is provided by someone who is not adequately protected with even the basics, how we feel about that? Asne Seierstad: Well I don't know, it is dangerous to be in a war-zone and nobody is really protected. I think we are fooling ourselves if we think if we have the right equipment that we are safe, everybody has to be equally careful. Baghdad it is a town of 5 million people without any protection of any kind and I believe that I in the end to was actually protected. I have a long experience of working in war zones and you have to use your common sense and to try to find and judge every situation. And I don't believe that I was in a less or more dangers position than any of those with hundreds of courses. Nik Gowing: Chris Cramer I've got come back you as the honourary President of INSI. What do you think when you hear of that experience providing material for several Scandinavian broadcasters? Chris Cramer: Well I can't comment on that because I don't know the circumstances but I know Asne very well and I think she is a courageous and extremely talented correspondent. But I had thought at this conference for the first time in 10 years that we had got to a position where it was generally understood that you can't be taught things to go and work in a war-zone but you can learn things you didn't know about. We have at CNN and mandated policy that people do not go to war zones and less they are trained or if like Asne they have spent several years in a war-zone they are all retrained. I have yet to meet anyone at CNN even the most sceptical people at CNN who didn't come back from that course having learnt one single thing. These courses are not just invaluable they are absolutely essential. And if the industry is going to learn anything from this debate it has to understand that we need to recognise that they don't send a fireman to fight fires without training. They don't send emergency workers out without training. They don't send members of the armed forces out without training and then retraining and then debriefing. What is so incredibly special about our profession where we think that we can go somewhere recklessly and behave as though nothing is going on around us. 60 of our colleagues have died in the last 10 months of this year. Six-zero! Nik Gowing: Thanks Chris. I am tempted to ask how many of you as an unscientific show of hands feel at any kind of line or rubicon has now been crossed on this issue of armed protection and armed guards. Can I ask for a show of hands of those of you who believe that line has been crossed irreversibly now? Maybe about a quarter. (unidentified): I personally believe that the line has been crossed but not irreversibly and I think if we can reach a consensus he should be the one that I'm for and not the one that Chris is for. Nik Gowing: Okay I'm not here with square brackets and a brief to draft but let me withdraw irreversibly then that a line has been crossed on the issue of armed protection. More hands have gone up. Who believes that a line has not been crossed? Okay the majority is that some line has been crossed. For those who want some kind of verdict from the session. What I want to do now is move on to one of the areas they came up this morning about how much we really understand in our business about how the military works. Particularly What Chris Vernon hinted at this morning and he did begin to talk to us to some of us outside. I hope if we have joining us from London Major-General Arthur Denaro who until recently was Int the British forces, the special forces and and also Commandant of the Staff College. Arthur Denaro also commanded a tank regiment in the first Gulf war. General Denaro and what I want to ask you with these 400 media representatives here is, at what is the view in your of business, of the military about how much we understand about how you and your colleagues work. Major-General Arthur Denaro (British Forces): Nik good afternoon it's nice to be with you. Can I just make three comments on the previous debate because I was listening with great interest to it. First of all I believe that journalists should be trained if they possibly can be. Secondly that they should absolutely not be armed. And thirdly that the armed guard issue must depend totally on the circumstances that prevail at the time. So whether or not you have crossed the line there I believe you can easily go back across it. But your question to me was about? Nik Gowing: It was about something much broader we have a discussion here earlier talking about how much our business really understands about the dramatic changes in the military, about high intensity warfare, about effects based warfare. In other words do we have a serious problem that we simply many of us, most of us don't understand how the military operates these days. Major-General Arthur Denaro: I think you do to an extent. I have to say that a lot of those who were embedded this time round probably know a great deal more about the armed forces and how they operate than a lot of soldiers who didn't go. And if I may say so I've got a huge respect for all those journalists who go and put themselves in harm's way in order to produce the news for the people back home. What the people back home don't understand is the fact that one or two bullets coming your way when they are definitely coming your way is a very serious business. It is more than just a skirmish to you down there but of course to the bigger picture the person sitting back and editing the news it is a tiny skirmish. Nik Gowing: But one if the complaints I've heard from many of your former colleagues and indeed colleagues of yours is that many in our business particularly in news rooms who never get out in the field who were never embedded don't begin to understand the basics of how the three services work? Major-General Arthur Denaro: That's a pretty good criticism and it is you guys of course who are now in the more senior positions are are having to edit those very dramatic pieces of news that are coming from the front line which unless they are very carefully edited by somebody who does understand the bigger picture lead to a very distorted picture of what is going on on the ground. And there is no doubt that that happened in the first 10 days of this recent conflict. The impression certainly even for those of us who are even relatively experienced soldiers was that things were going wrong, things were going badly and the planning wasn't right but in fact they were tiny in comparative terms skirmishes in the bigger picture. Nik Gowing: You're there because many on your side who simply won't sit in front of a camera complain that we get it wrong, we are naive, we used lousy pundits to give verdict of what is happening in a very complex war situation. Multi-dimensional, multi-spectrum as you put it. What can be done by our business to begin to understand your business because not everyone or the vast majority cannot get the experience of being with British or American forces in Iraq? Major-General Arthur Denaro: No they can't. At the bottom line we've talked about the training and that's important and further up the line there are people like yourself and many others who do know the military, you may not understand them as well as you could but you've got a lot of other things to do to. In something that was forecast so well, as this latest conflict, I believe they could have been much more effort on both sides. By us to educate you and by you to come in and try to understand the dimensions of this multi-dimensional business that we are all in. And we are all in it for sure as your last debate was so clear about. So there is much more you can do. I think that we in the military certainly keep training and key Gowing on courses to one and two-star level. And we never see a journalist coming in on that and we never see anybody from the media industry. You come and talk to us on these courses as you have done yourself Nik but we never have anybody coming in to learn with us. Nik Gowing: All right give us a minute of your proposal then which we can go way from this conference with something which not just the British journalists but many journalists in large and small countries can do. Major-General Arthur Denaro: Well, they should get more involved in military courses. You have got to select within each of your agencies people who are going to edit the main news from war-zone and that person has got to be educated in the ways of modern war. Nik Gowing: General Denaro thank you for joining us from London with that very clear message. Let's now move on to another critical area, the airier of whether we are being targeted. Whether our colleagues are being targeted, it those like Mazen Dahmer. What I want to do now is move on to experiences from the West Bank and Gaza with the Israeli Defence forces. Raanan Gissen is joining us from Israel, rum and kissing the great fear here is that your Israeli Defence forces simply are not prepared to discriminate when it comes to the issue of journalists in other words far too many journalists are being targeted actively by the IDF and there is no disciplinary action being taken. Nothing is being published and no inquiries are under way. Raanan Gissen (Israeli Government Spokesperson): Well first of all I would not take this accusation without responding to it by saying that probably the Israeli army, the Israeli Defence forces have the greatest amount of experience in dealing with journalists because of the kind of wars we have been fighting and I would reject outright this accusation because I think we have more experience than others. But we also have more wars, more low-intensity wars than other nations. Nik Gowing: We are talking that Mr Gissen and you are a reserve colonel yourself you used to be a spokesman in Lebanon yourself in 1996. You know the way we work we are talking specifically about journalism we are talking about the large number of documented cases of journalists being directly targeted. Raanan Gissen: No absolutely not. I don't know of any case where there was a direct targeting of journalists. I want you to understand one thing and I think your colleagues as well must understand it. You have 400 journalists assembled there that is the number of journalists we have in Israel on any average day. And when there is a war or any kind of news breaking event that takes place on the battlefield all the journalists want to be in the same place usually at the sights of the rifle and cover the war from there. Now you must understand one thing, but the real problem with journalists get killed is not in high-intensity conflicts but in a low intensity counter guerrilla or counter-terrorist operations because of the problem of identification. And what seems to to you as deliberate targeting is mistaken identity in many cases because the soldiers either could not distinguish or are there deployed in that particular area in a relatively short period of time and do not familiarise with the theatre. The theatre of operation determines the extent of risk and these kind of theatres like in Iraq or like in the Territories is one which makes it very hard. Nik Gowing: Raanan Gissen I have to say that there was an expression of disbelief about what you said about journalists there. So we have given you advanced warning of the so it shouldn't be a surprise. And I should say that we approached that the IDF and they said that they were busy throughout November and wouldn't be available and that is why we are talking to you as the Prime Minister's spokesman. What I want to do is remind people about the case of James Miller who was killed on the day that the International News Safety Institute was having its meeting on May 2nd in Brussels. And what are want to do is show about four minutes of video of the incident in Rafa be hard up against the Egyptian border which was clearly a case where he could have been seen for much of the day and had been monitored. Let's run the video, there you can see James Miller with his three colleagues including Syra Shah, clearly in their jackets full hostile environment kit. They had been filming in the area you can see the bulldozers close up against the Egyptian border and at this point they were moving away, John Miller, James's brother is here and I'm giving a summary of this and these are some of the pictures that he shot that day but it is what happened later which is the contentious issue because this happened only four months ago. They had been on a verandah and had been seen by the Israeli APC and they decided to move forward. This was shot by an APTN cameraman. (runs videotape) Shots fired in a deliberate manner. John Miller and Raanan Gissen. No wait Mr Gissen I haven't made an accusation at all I am just asking for John Miller to tell us what has happened with the investigation over the past four months. John Miller (justice4jamesmiller.com): I'd like to start by asking actually whether or not you think the actions of that soldier are representative of the IDF and if you don't as I am sure you won't then why are you being so obstructive in the cause of justice and you sir in particular? Nik Gowing: John could you just tell us what the state of the investigation is as far as you understand with your requests to the Israelis? John Miller: There has been an IDF field report which we were promised we would have full disclosure of. We have never seen it and now we have been told that we won't see it because they have instigated a military police investigation which is a closed investigation and we have no report from that either. Nik Gowing: Raanan Gissen a question there from John Miller the brother. There are 400 broadcast executives sitting in this audience, what is your response in a case like this? We are using this as an example. Raanan Gissen: I'll tell you exactly what my response is. We conduct thorough investigations of any killing, any shooting of innocent civilians, we don't target civilians. The other side does target civilians, the Palestinians target civilians, use civilians, hide behind civilians. This makes for a very complicated theatre in which soldiers sometimes who lack experience cannot make the proper identification despite the video that you show. I can show you 10 videos how the Palestinians stage, not attacks against Israel, but disguising themselves as ambulance operators and as reporters. That's why I said the critical issue is to understand the theatre, whether it is in Kosovo, or Somalia or in Gaza, it is a different type of theatre of war. There are rules of engagement that we take upon a self but the other side does not add here to. Nik Gowing: Do you understand the concerns of our business though Mr Gissen. Raanan Gissen: We were the first ones to offer the embeddment and escort system for journalists by the way. Nik Gowing: All right but can I just ask this question, do you except that on something like James Miller he and his team had been working in full view, well-marked as TV, wearing their jackets they had been monitored by at least two observation posts and watched by APC's, they were there for several hours filming. The APC's knew that they had moved up to a verandah a couple of hundred yards from wall, it is inconceivable in our business that that could have been mistaken identity given that they were not armed and there was no firing going on. Raanan Gissen: Not at all, not at all, it not at all! I'm sorry, because you see you show lack of understanding of the theatre of operations because if you were familiar with that theatre of operation of the staging of events by Palestinians in many instances then you would have known how difficult it is for our soldiers to make the distinction and it is purposefully done by the other side in such a way in order to create that kind of illegitimisation that you are trying to offer now. I think that journalists must be smarter than that. It would not be the first time that Palestinians have used camera crews... John Miller: He had 13 seconds to decide whether to kill him or not - he killed him! There was no shooting, you are talking too much. Nik Gowing: What we are talking about here is a principle of the impression being given that your forces are acting with impunity and no action is taken against them. It took more than two months.... Raanan Gissen: That's not true... Nik Gowing: Well I'm putting to you that concerns of our business. Raanan Gissen: I understand the concern but I am telling you the facts of the matter. We conduct thorough investigations and sometimes you can't reach conclusions in those investigations because of some of the factors I have just outlined but you choose to ignore that. You prefer to ignore that, you prefer to ignore the fact I've just laid on the table. Address yourself to these factors, the nature of this theatre of war which you cover, we provide you coverage, free access more so than the other side. I wonder whether if you went through from the Palestinian side what kind of free coverage you would get or what kind of protection you would get. Nik Gowing: I think what we are looking at is the statistics here which talk about the number of fatalities particularly...... Raanan Gissen: but that's a flaw in your analysis, or in your methodology because the reason that there are more people from outside they get killed is because there is freer access from out side. Nik Gowing: all right Mr Gissen you know the issues we want to raise because you asked in advance. Can I also raised the issue of the Nael Shyoukhi who is sitting here in the audience who was involved in an incident in 1998, five years ago, for which there has been no inquiry. Can I just remind us of the incident itself (runs videotape) We have heard that investigations are taking place. Nael Shyoukhi five years on what have you heard from the Israeli government or the IDF about that? Nael Shyoukhi (Television RVN): I'm sorry to say nothing up till now. On that night it was not only me that was shot it was me and about seven or eight of my colleagues, everybody that was trying to help me were shot. The army said that they will try to investigate of course this case, just like they said that time and up to now we are waiting. Nothing is happening, nobody has called us, nobody has asked us anything. Nik Gowing: how does that compare to the experience of your other colleagues on the West Bank and Gaza. Nael Shyoukhi: I guess they have the same experience I haven't heard that any of my colleagues have been investigated. My colleagues in Hebron for example, he was shot in head and he went to the lawyer just like me and we're still waiting we still haven't had an answer from the Israeli government up to now. Nik Gowing: Raanan Gissen as he said all these cases are being investigated..... Raanan Gissen: I am telling you there is no deliberate policy of targeting journalists. Nik Gowing: But what about your investigations? Raanan Gissen: We conduct investigations, it is not easy in those circumstances sometimes to reconstruct the whole event. As a said not only because the Palestinians don't co-operate, not only don't they co-operate but at times they themselves instigate those actions, there are staged events. And I think veteran journalists can admit that an know that. Those who come they in the first time don't know that. Sometimes a journalist is set up by the Palestinians there so that we will shoot him. I'm telling you there is more than meets the eye in those theatres and if you don't understand the nature of this theatre and that of course takes time and experience then it's very difficult for you or for the journalist as well as for us to prevent such incidents. We don't want these incidents happening it doesn't serve our purpose. Nik Gowing: All right Mr Gissen, you are speaking to an audience of 400 people many of whom know very explicitly the kind of work conditions that there are in the areas you described. Raanan Gissen: With one difference, no, no, no they don't take that liberty that they take with the Israeli Defence forces, not following orders or not following instructions as they would for example with that the British Army in Iraq or the American army in Somalia and in Iraq they don't take that liberty with these armies but they do take it with the IDF. Nik Gowing: We are trying to shed light on an issue of principle here, on the status of journalists in a zone of conflict whether it's a full-blown war or civil disorder or whatever. Nael Shyoukhi works all the time in the areas that you are referring to, what's your reflection on Mr Gissen has said? Nael Shyoukhi: I just want to tell Mr Gissen that this is not the first time I've been shot I have been shot seven times. My colleagues some of them have been shot as many as 15 times and its recorded in hospitals and everywhere pictures. Raanan Gissen: Of course you have come from the line of fire Nael Shyoukhi: We were saying all the time and calling the Israeli army and Israeli officials we have journalists shot every day we don't want come to the point we journalists are killed when Nasir Dower was killed in Nablus. And we are same again there we are just civilians which has journalists doing our job just as the un is doing its job and we have families and children and we don't want to be killed or shot. Nik Gowing: Mr Gissen I want to show another bit of video here about a protest. Again you're familiar with this it is an issue which is still very much of concern in our business. (runs videotape) Mr Gissen I'm coming back to you again we are talking about a principle here of the impression....... Raanan Gissen: A principle where we are the victims of this war and we are defending ourselves. Come on! Stop twisting the whole picture, we are defending ourselves against a war of terrorism launched at us by the Palestinians. They come from the side of those who launched a war at us and want to kill our men and women and children. What do you expect? Look at other armies, what do you expect. I think that journalists should be more cautious when they going to a battle zone where there is clearly a problem of identification and try not to put themselves in the line of fire. Nik Gowing: Can I ask you what the rules of engagement are when any member of the Israeli Defence forces is facing a camera or the suspicion of a camera? Raanan Gissen: The rules of engagement are such that our code of conduct as far as conducting an operation in a densely populated area was taken by the American army and translated from Hebrew to English as standard operating procedure. I am telling you! We try to identify but in the heat of battle when there is ongoing operations, or what one guy sees all seems to be an innocent bystander or someone that the other sees a guy holding a shoulder mounted rifle or RPG and that looks like a camera. And it is not the first time. Believe me I'm a veteran of these wars for 20 years in Lebanon, in the Territories in Gaza believe me I've been there personally. It's not one time that I've seen Palestinians disguise themselves as camera crews or having camera crews lead before they will attack and that makes it very difficult for the soldiers to make the identification. However if there are cases where there is a clear violation and it is clear that the soldier deliberately shot at an innocent man then there is a full scale investigation. Nik Gowing: As I said Mr Gissing we are trying to shed light on this not create heat because there is an issue here of an our conditions of work and the conditions of their colleagues. Raanan Gissen: You refuse to understand one important element. You listen very patiently to the General had to say, the nature and definition of the field of operation, the theatre of operations determines the extent to which journalists are risking their lives. In high-intensity conflict where the battle lines are clearly drawn there is statistically much less casualties among journalists. But when you have for a low intensity conflict, counter guerrilla operations, shooting at close range there are more incidents of this kind. This is statistically proven not just in the Territories but everywhere. Nik Gowing: But would you accept the findings of the Jaffa Institute which did an independent analysis last year which concluded that no operational or tactical doctrine has been developed by the IDF to deal with what he called the strategic threat from the presence of the media. In other words work needs to be done. Raanan Gissen: Of course. Look we are constantly learning and trying to learn, we are conducting seminars we are teaching and training our offices in how to deal with the media. And invite the media to give us advice on how to work in such an environment. One of the systems that we developed an we try to develop and hone it all the time it is the escort officer system that the journalists are escorted from out side even in the most complex operation even in those targeted at intersections or when we go in to raid we take journalists with us. You can see that the report is much more accurate and much more balanced but when somebody pops up from the other side in what is not well defined battle line it is very difficult for the soldiers to make that kind of clear identification. Nik Gowing: I would like to recognise John Miller again but I would like to tell you among those who you can't see their is a degree of disbelief at what you're saying. I can only reflect the feeling in the audience that it is not convincing given we are talking about large numbers of our colleagues many nationalities injured and targeted 60 or 70 times. On the James Miller case, John Miller. John Miller: From what I have heard you clearly need to look at all the evidence. I am coming to Jerusalem in December I would like to know if you want to me me face to face and we will discuss this face-to-face? Raanan Gissen: Of course I have no problem meeting you I have no problem meeting any of your colleagues but I am not going to be put here on the stand where I am being accused or the state of Israel is being accused for exercising its right of self-defence. I wonder whether you level the same kind of criticisms towards the Palestinians as you levelled towards us when we are fighting a war of self-defence. Or whether you will leve those kind of level of accusations towards the British Army of American Army when it takes the necessary measures to defend itself and in that course of action unfortunately, regrettably civilians and journalists get killed. John Miller: So for sure we will meet in December Raanan Gissen: Of course I'll be very happy to me you. Nik Gowing: you have 400 witnesses to that commitment and to taking the process forward and full transparency on the findings of the case like James Miller. Let's hope something can move forward from here. Raanan Gissen can I thank you for joining us from Jerusalem. Raanan Gissen: Thank you. Nik Gowing: we've run over because of that. Can we move on now to the predicament of Tele5 from Spain after what happened on 8th April at the Palestine Hotel. I'm going to talk to them in a moment but let's remind ourselves and we have here from Tele5 a summary of what happened in the Palestine Hotel when the cameraman was killed. (runs videotape) We heard Bryan Whitman from the Pentagon earlier today saying that it has all been investigated and it is all there on the website. Juan Pedro from Tele5 are you satisfied with that the outcome and the inquiry report? Juan Pedro Valentin (Telecinco): No, we are not really satisfied we found the answers from of Pentagon very poor. They said that they fired on the Palestine because they saw a person with binoculars and that was the last answer we had. We have just heard Brian Whitman saying it this morning that they cannot have people transmitting their positions live in an operation, so this is what happened on 8th April. And if I remember well, they fired at Abu Dhabi TV which had 24 cameras broadcasting all the operations live. They fired at Al Jazeera and they fired at Reuters room which had to the 24 hour camera to. What we can confirm from this report and investigation is that at the moment the shots were fired there was no real war at the Al Gujariya bridge so we can see that the tank fired 19 shots in the last 24 minutes but only one in the last 15 minutes so this is the last shot made by this tank. Why? Why did the tank shoot the hotel? They said only that they saw people with binoculars but they didn't see people with cameras. Nik Gowing: The Pentagon report talked about firing being seen, "in the same general location as the building", that was rather different to what they said immediately afterwards, that there was firing coming from the lobby. What we are trying to get to hear is the status of investigations, firstly, and watch you have discovered about rules of engagement and the understanding from your investigation of what a tank crew can no about say, the Palestine Hotel. We heard from Linsey Hilsum earlier about her expectation of what should be known by the military right up the chain of command. Juan Pedro Valentin: Sergeant Gibson said that there were no cameras in the balconies they just saw a person with binoculars and he said also that they didn't know that was the journalists Hotel but Colin Powell said in a press conference in Madrid on 2nd May, "we knew about the Palestine Hotel, that is the reason the hotel was not attacked at the beginning of the war". Nik Gowing: Right, what we are trying to find out then is about the command structure, the military command structure. What about the rules of engagement, what have you discovered about when a US tank has permission to fire? Juan Pedro Valentin: Well Sergeant Gibson said that he spent 10 minutes and asked if his commander if he could make the shot. They said, "okay make the shot". And what happened after, they said, "yd shoot fire at the Palestine Hotel?" space so there is no answer to this misunderstanding. Nik Gowing: right, a final question, what have you been trying to do in Spain because your view remains that this is a war crime. Juan Pedro Valentin: Now there is an investigation in court, it is the same court that make the order to jail former president Augusto Pinochet and the same court that make the order to jail Tesir Daluni the Al Jazeera journalist. Discord is now investigating this issue and we are expecting what they are going to say. But the Spanish government and the Pentagon and the American government have said, "that's all, these things happen" the American government didn't even admit that this was a mistake, they eat say that they are doing their job but we were doing our job in side our room. Nik Gowing: in a moment were going to go to Washington to speak to a former general about the reality. Just before we move to Washington can I go to a Mark Beck from Al Jazeera because, Omar this morning reference was made to the attack on the Al Jazeera office on the same day. I think it is important to clear-up isn't it exactly what did all what didn't happen to your office. You don't believe that it was an attack on your office, probably, it was more likely to be the targeting of a generator belonging to the Villa of Comical Ali, the Information Minister. In other words it was not a direct targeting of Al Jazeera itself. Omar Bec: Well to be honest with you in a vague terms the generator was ours, and the villa is supposedly adjacent to the place where we were doing our reports from. For audio purposes the generator is kept as distant as possible from the output and thus it was adjacent to the walls separating the two villas and yes you are right that was targeted and our colleague died from shrapnel. Nik Gowing: So, you are not really totally sure that it was the bureau itself of Al Jazeera that was targeted although you lost your reporter? Omar Bec: Well that's just it we keep sending information to the Pentagon that we do require information from them so please come forward to this. We keep making our requests but probably quite like my colleague there in so many words they come back with nothing. So will the truth be eventually known? I have no idea I am just positive that hopefully it will be. Nik Gowing: The other thing that I just want to raise and General is not the serving general but has served until recently and are talking about broad principles. Can we also remind ourselves about what happened to Mazen Dana the Reuter cameraman who in another film for CBC confirmed that he had been hit 60 times in his work on the West Bank in Gaza who was then killed on the road outside the Abu Gurai grey prison in Baghdad. Let's just remind ourselves what happened when he was filming and Nael Shyoukhi was with him as a sound man that day, he was filming and a tank came towards him, they knew he and Nael were working but this is what happened. (runs videotape) Before I go to General Nash, Wolfgang what have you learned in Reuters from the US military? Wolfgang Waehner-Schmidt: As you said, there is a report on the internet about the Palestine Hotel but we still do not have any report at all about the Mazen Dana shooting we have been promised that it will be made available to us and the family but as yet we don't have it. Nik Gowing: Can I go to Major-General Nash who is head of the Council for Preventative Action, and on the council on foreign relations in Washington. I am not expecting you in any way General to respond to any of these detailed incidents but in our discussions before when you agreed to come on, what we were trying to do and you were a former commander of US forces in Bosnia, you were in the Gulf war as well. Can we talk principle here, it is not easy to get someone inside the US military to talk principle, what is your view of this concern in our business about impunity and the fact that these incidents to our way of thinking are simply not being adequately investigated, with those who committed them, if necessary, being brought before a court martial. Major General William Nash (Center for Preventative Action): Well I appreciate your having me on Nik and I have listened with great interest to this very lively discussion you have been having for the last hour. I would make a couple of comments, first of all journalists on the battlefield are expecting a risk that goes with being able to provide a reports to the citizens of the world and our various nations on what is really happening. And as you know the American military has gone to some extraordinary effort in recent years to try and find ways to accommodate the need for operational security with the public's right to know what's going on and trying to find a good balance. War is chaos and in that chaos tragedies occur in all cases and it is important to understand that when incidents like this happen I think there is a responsibility to find the facts and to be transparent in the investigating process. But as the example we heard from the Palestine Hotel, speaking too quickly is inevitably to speak incorrectly and the poor spokesman from Central Command who tried to justify the shooting of a hotel with the fact that fire was coming from the lobby was just not only wrong but was foolish to try and speak so quickly and explain something that neither he nor anybody else had no idea what they were talking about. Nik Gowing: I think we understand that, or we understand the problem of dealing with real time information, it's the same in a newsroom as it is in an army or military headquarters. Information overload and trying to clarify it. What we are trying to understand is why something like the incident which killed Mazen Dana from a tank no more than 50 metres away. We just cannot understand how something like that can happen in an area where a cameraman and his sound man at who is sitting here have already got permission from the military to be there. Major General Nash: Well I understand and I certainly can't understand even Nick. But I would make a couple of points, first of all when you say "they knew we were there", they is a relative term. Yes we knew the Palestine Hotel was being occupied by journalists but the sergeant on the ground even if he knew that this hotel known as the Palestine Hotel was occupied by journalists as he is looking at the city of Baghdad he may not have had any idea which building was the Palestine Hotel and likewise the tank commander and the tank gunner in the other situation may not have been briefed down through the chain if command that they were there. You brief people and you put out the word that there are journalists there are but that doesn't mean that that very high on the priority list for recognition by the commander who is being shot at. And the other thing I've got to say to you is sometimes and we've all had this problem the reality of the battlefield is that sometimes you see what you expect to see and you don't necessarily expect to see a cameraman, a camera on a man's shoulder but you do expect to see a weapon on the man's shoulder. And you don't necessarily expect to see the glint of a camera lens but you do expect to see an artillery forward observer using binoculars to spy on you and to target you. And so the fact of the matter is that these things happen because people are scared, they are terrified, they are confused and they are very busy. What happens afterwards and you have to understand it now, the dynamics of post tragedy investigation is something that I think bears a responsibility. I would be the first to argue that we in the American military or the British military or in modern Western military especially engaged in conflict that our current in Iraq or the West Bank have an obligation to rise above the behaviour of our opponents. Failure, no matter how difficult, we bear a requirement for a much higher standard of transparency, of truth and ultimate justice. Nik Gowing: Can you enlighten us though on what the rules of engagement are because it is nothing new to have the media there in a transparent environment. Major-General Nash: The facts of the matter raised that the rules of engagement in a wartime situation is that you have to be ready to shoot fast to kill, OK? And you go through a process of target recognition and it requires rapid action because if that thing on the person's shoulder is not a camera but is in fact a Dragon or Javelin anti-tank weapons system then you only have a matter of seconds to react before you and your buddies could be killed and that's why mistakes happen. Nik Gowing: Are you saying then that we are being too optimistic about the level of information comes down through a command chain. We would expect as we can see it that you know it or that everyone knows it is there a problem on our side in terms of understanding this massive military structure? Major-General Nash: I think that's a way to put it. First of all you need to understand if you are in the middle of a battle field or if you are in the capital city of the enemy it is going to be dangerous and to expect that everybody on that battlefield has a situational aware ness that is finite and total would be a serious misjudgment. That is just not the real world in a newsroom or on the battlefield. Nik Gowing: Well I think finally General Nash, I think many of us have been concerned listing to Brian Whitman from the Pentagon and I know that you've retired but in the end you represent a certain way of thinking about this issue, and that when he says, "the US will control the battle space and has to" that sends a very ominous signal that really we will not be tolerated even if we tell them precisely where we are. Major-General Nash: I think that's unrealistic as well. Of course, nobody in the American military is going to intentionally target journalists, OK? Especially the journalists you and I speak of and we know and love. But at the same time you've got to understand that commanders are going to support their soldiers who they send out to conduct very dangerous and arduous tasks and they are going to be very slow to criticise somebody who is doing the best he can do under very difficult circumstances. Nik Gowing: But do you think there is a culture, and understanding in Carlisle Barracks in places where doctrine is thought about that this is now an urgent problem which needs to be addressed, we have heard it from several executives here, it cannot be ignored and pushed to one side that there is an impression of impunity. Major General Nash: Oh I don't think that you have a right to allege impunity, you see too many cases where Americans have in fact been hurt in the same war because they have been slow to shoot, and we have had a number of incidents especially in the early days where people were very slow to engage what turned out to be a hostile act. And understand the dynamics that journalists have in fact been used as a cover for aggressive acts take the camera man in a northern Afghanistan who killed General Masood. So I will point out you that we do not act with impunity but we will act with great resolve and determination as they go about doing their duties. Like everything else we have got to keep the communications going and as we've seen in the last dozen years with the embedding of journalists there is a great effort on the part of a military to incorporate the concerns of the world of journalism in a military operation. Nik Gowing: Well General Nash thank you very much, if there is anything you can do to communicate what we can see as a massive concern here that a dialogue has to be opened with the Pentagon thank you very much for joining us. What I would like to do now is move on to the issue of war crimes and the Geneva Conventions. A very complex area, whether war crimes are being committed by those who target journalists. It's been added to it in complexity but also in simplicity in many ways by the International Criminal Court are there arguments now to change the Geneva Convention, something which may take up to six years to get the protocols changed or to add a protocol. Let's listen to Geoffrey Robertson the leading human rights barrister in London also a member of the Sierra Leone war-crimes court he has said that international law has not yet caught up with the profession of journalism. Geoffrey Robertson QC: Amending the Geneva Conventions to provide protection for journalists as one class among a number of participants in the battlefield situation is important but I would actually go further. I would actually making it a war crime to kill a journalist for a state to either do so directly by hitting a television station or to do it indirectly, negligently or of course to do it through death squads or indeed as Saddam Hussein did through execution. The opportunity to make the killing of a journalist by the state a crime was overlooked when the International Criminal Court was set up. Nik Gowing: On that particular point what about how to define the journalists status in a conflict under the laws of war and how to uphold the media status as a non combatant not withstanding in everything else we discussed at the beginning of this session. Geoffrey Robertson QC: ... journalists very broadly and it has and can be done. Whether it should include media workers, or camera operatives or sound recorders and so on. Well of course it should. All those who are professionally involved in covering a conflict for a communication to a wider audience should be included as journalists and should be afforded the protection, the basic protection of being immune from death at the hands of a state force or indeed at the hands of an organised force. That is the simple case I think that journalists traditionally are very and rightly reluctant to ask for privileges because you set yourself up with a privilege and you find all sorts of duties being attached to it. But I think in these life and death situations it is fair to say that in building a better world and trying to develop to a stage where we do stop wars, we a port walls we denounce and decry wars, we at the same time wars breakout try to insure that they are conducted with a minimum at least of civility. That journalists contribute to that objective by a covering what's going on in the same way that UN peacekeepers, aid officials, Medcins sans Frontieres other organisations of that sort contribute. Nik Gowing: Geoffrey Robertson, thank you. Let's go to Montreal to Marco Sassoli a lawyer stroke Professor Marco Sassoli you have a rather different view to that of Geoffrey Robertson, what's your view of the potential now to change the Geneva Convention, to modify and to respect the laws of war, to improve at least the legal standing of journalists in conflict. Marco Sassoli (University of Quebec): First of all now I stress that I agree with Geoffrey Robertson that we have to protect journalists, I would simply say that the law clearly already protects them. It is a war crime to attack civilians and journalists are civilians because civilians are defined as everyone who is not a combatant and is not directly participating in hostilities. And therefore we do not need to amend the Geneva Convention and it is clearly already all war crime to kill a journalist. Nik Gowing: Do you believe that there are those in government, those who run militaries who are actively trying to avoid a position where anyone serving in their forces could be accused of war crimes. The kind of feeling that there is in our business that there is impunity with some of the actions being taken by the military, even the Americans and the Israelis. Marco Sassoli: Well this is the general problem of impunity and I don't think we need new rules but political will to apply the rules and to use the existing mechanisms. To give an example, we spoke about the Palestine Hotel attack, if what the Americans say is true there was no war crime. If what it the Tele5 journalists say there was a war crime. How can we know what is true? There is for instance an international fact-finding commission forseen by protocol additional one to the Geneva Convention and nobody uses it. And so I would say that journalists could appeal to the States to use an independent international existing fact-finding comission if there is controversy about the facts because there is no controversy about the law. Everyone agrees that it is unlawful to attack journalists. Nik Gowing: Are we being too cynical to assume that one of the reasons the Americans didn't sign up to the International Criminal Court was in order to avoid this problem of what status the journalists would have particularly as we been hearing from Brian Whitman of the Pentagon that the US military expect total control of the battle space and we as observers and bearers of witness are actually potentially witnesses to things which could be war crimes. Marco Sassoli: I cannot speak about this hypothesis but in the sure that if there is a genuine will to respect journalists this will can be proven by allowing independent investigation into such allegations and I for my part think that the US could improve their image abroad including here in Canada if they were agreeing to such investigations. Because perhaps, and I would rather say there is a high probability that such investigations lead to the conclusion that they did not violate that the laws of war one now there is a doubt that they did. Nik Gowing: What about the issue of armed protection, all we've been discussing that earlier this afternoon in Budapest. The issue of whether and some organisations are moving to the hiring of armed protection. What is your view about how all that will confuse now the debate over the non-combatant status of journalists? Marco Sassoli: I think we have to distinguish armed protection against a party to the conflict or armed protection against criminals. Armed protection against criminals is a solution while if you let one side of a conflict protect you against another then you take part in the conflict because the enemy has a right to attack your protectors because those are combatants. Nik Gowing: That is very legal response Professor we have to be practical though. In the end if we have a hired people who are carrying side arms or something heavier and we're saying we are protecting ourselves against bandits is there a subtlety which can divide between the bandits and becoming part of a war? Marco Sassoli: In my view it depends on the situation, if there is actual fighting then I would not hire anyone protecting me with side arms while if there is unrest and large criminality then that's a different situation. Nik Gowing: professor thank you very much indeed for joining us from Montreal with that extra clarity on this very complex but very important issue which has on the minds of many television and broadcast executives. Can I now move to Robert Menard from R S F in Paris, Robert is going to speak in French, when you hear that legal response what is your view about the way forward on at this very complex issue? Robert Menard (Reporters sans Fronti�res): Unable to translate Nik Gowing: Robert Menard in Paris thank you. We have compressed a lot of forward planning to do this afternoon but I wouldn't like to have missed who has joined us from Toronto and we heard from him earlier, professor Anthony Feinstein can I ask you very quickly to go through, because George Soros is sitting in the studio ready for his keynote speech, so I ask for your patience. Could you just give us a summary of your findings in Iraq both during the war and since on stress and trauma. Anthony Feinstein: What it translates into is that that psychological risks for journalists is quite high, about 28% over the course of their career develop a disorders such as post traumatic stress disorder. A slightly smaller number it's still a high number develop significant depression and if you have a look at the Iraq data we have some interesting data to show that with the your are embedded in journalist were non embedded journalists there is no difference with respect to your psychological responses. And I think the reason for that is that the exposure to violence appears to be equal between the embedded and the non embedded journalists and so the rates of PTSD and a depression are quite similar with the you are at an embed or not. From the Iraq war the rates are a little bit lower than they are from conflicts such as Bosnia etc that's because the journalists themselves in the earlier phases of the Iraq war tended to rate it as slightly less hazardous than being in a place such as Bosnia whether that is still the case now I think remains to be seen but this is still a work-in-progress. Nik Gowing: When you say work-in-progress know when you see the kind of conditions and the kind of pressures and what you knew from Bosnia and the pressures that were there, when you began your work you created the database and the start line. What would you imagine the difference to be between travelling up-country in a Bradley ar an Abraham's and now actually the stress of being in a place like Iraq and we can apply this to anywhere else of course but particularly the transition to intense war-fighting and what is now insurgency and getting much worse. Anthony Feinstein: Well I suspect that is the great risk that you may indeed end up in a situation down the road now that is not dissimilar from Bosnia and if that is the case then the psychological risk factors go up significantly. Nik Gowing: And how would that manifest itself in terms of what you have seen with those who have answered your questionnaires and you've met? Anthony Feinstein: Well I think that what it means is that early on in this Iraq war the journalists themselves never felt particularly vulnerable even though it is clearly dangerous but with the passage of time that might indeed change and you might find that the rates have depression and PTSD and substance abuse go up accordingly. It is a reflection of your exposure to danger the more at risk you are the more likely you are to develop some of these nasty conditions. Nik Gowing: All right there is a lot of this detail in the book "Dying To Tell The Story", Mark Brayne director of the Dart Centre in Europe, 25 years at the BBC before you left a few weeks ago. Mark what is your reflection on this issue? Mark Brayne: The conclusions that the Dart Centre hear and in the United States have come to an working at a project to the BBC before I moved on specifically building up to the Iraq war and supporting colleagues before the war and afterwards is that there is an essential role for education. Most journalists like most people cope pretty well with trauma we are programmed as human beings to do that but journalists are at a particular risk of psychological stress and damage not just from covering the war but might be covering crime or domestic disasters or so on and we are working towards changing the journalistic culture to normalise the experience of emotional distress if it comes up and to recognise that going through a bad time is something that one can share, talk about. And if you do talk about it there are ways of reducing the distress, it is part of our profession and it needs to be normalised and brought right into the training and managerial experience. Nik Gowing: And are managers sympathetic by and large, or are they on a sharp learning curve as well? Mark Brayne: I think there has been a very sharp learning curve tragically in responding to what has actually been happening in the field particularly the suicides of two of our colleagues in recent months it brings home that it can build up behind what looks to be a coping facade. And the managers that I have been speaking to are extremely open to this, it let's bring some training into the basic introduction to journalism and in the day-to-day management of journalism. Nik Gowing: Thanks very much Mark and Anthony and at that stage I'm going to bring the Safety Session to close. I hope we have shed light even if we haven't produced a definitive answers that some might have liked. Transcript by Tony Callaghan Photo Credits: Piotr Azia, EBU; Balint Eder, Brill Productions; and Mark Milstein, North Foto Back to Top All Session Transcripts

Copyright ©2010 EBU-UER