Elizabeth Palmer: In South America, there's a great deal of intimidation and violence against journalists, some of it by the drug cartels, but also from governments.

Luisa Rangel (INSI Latin America co-ordinator): One of the problems we're facing all around Latin America, and something that is not very well known, is that from Mexico to Argentina, journalists are facing threats, menaces and eventually they're killed by drug pins. There is another fact, which stems from coverage of political corruption: In the provinces in many countries in Latin America - like Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela, my own country - whenever journalists go to do a story or to research what is happening with corruption and the authorities, they are killed.

Elizabeth Palmer: What would work to help cut down the violence and have cases that are on the books investigated properly?

Luisa Rangel: There is a lot of impunity, of course. There's a lot of suspicion that both in corruption investigations and drug trafficking, there's complicity between the authorities and the drug pins. We have the laws, we have a judicial system - and investigations go to the courts, but they never end. International pressure works but, in the case of drug trafficking, we're at a point now where there is international concern about drug trafficking, but the international community doesn't know what to do about it - and that's affecting everybody, the consuming countries and the producing countries.

Elizabeth Palmer: I'd like to be a little provocative and ask whether journalists are their own worst enemies often, that we are ill prepared, that we wade into places without sufficient information so that we don't understand the dangers. I remember attending a seminar in London by Vaughan Smith, who was giving us hell because we don't know how to fix our own cars, and he's absolutely right. I thought of all the times that I might have ended up in real trouble because I have no idea how to fix a broken engine. How big a problem are those kinds of things?

Mark Brayne (DART Centre): I'm glad you asked that question because one of the things that I find very encouraging in the debate this year about journalism safety is something that Rodney Pinder named very clearly two days ago at the INSI AGM, and that is what journalists themselves can do in terms of recognising their own vulnerability. Blaming all the other people - who often are responsible for the dreadful things that can happen to journalists - risks taking away recognition of our own responsibility, what we can do.

There's no question that, if we're really honest, colleagues of ours have died in circumstances where, actually, they shouldn't have been. It's difficult for us, at a public forum like this, to name this, without appearing to be sullying our own nest. But I do think much more attention needs to be paid to an assessment of the emotional things that are going on when people take risks that are not a good idea. When people are fired up in conditions of extreme stress, there is a real danger that they - or their employers and their colleagues - will make decisions that are the wrong ones. A touch of humility, a touch of recognition of our vulnerability, alongside all of the other things about exploring what we can do to protect ourselves physically and also stop people hurting journalists who shouldn't be doing it.

Elizabeth Palmer: It comes back to the duty of care by large organisations to look after local staff, who are hired for smaller wages, who at least should be entitled to the same kind of training. That doesn't cover freelancers at all, and it's utopian to think that everybody can have adequate training. But it is something that large organisations could certainly do - to have in place a protocol to make people aware of how to protect themselves better.

Sergei Karazy (Reuters TV, Ukraine): The issue I want to raise here is based on my experience of communicating with local networks and journalists working for stations and other media in Eastern Europe. This problem is not as dramatic as the issues in Iraq or Latin America, but it's underestimated and it could become a problem in the near future.

We were covering the war in the former Yugoslavia in the early '90s, which was covered mainly by the major international networks - American and Western European broadcasters, companies with big resources and quite a lot of experience, starting from the Vietnam War and World War II. When we were covering the conflict in Kosovo in 1998, in Macedonia, for example, all of a sudden I saw a lot of TV crews and radio reporters from countries like Poland, Romania, and, surprisingly, I've seen Ukrainian crews working there. In recent years, there are Georgian TV companies that can afford to send people on international assignments.

So TV news broadcasting is becoming a booming business in these countries. This might apply also to other developing countries in other parts of the world. Stations become very competitive; journalists are very enthusiastic. They can afford now to travel to war zones; they can afford to send their crews to cover major disasters. When it comes to television equipment, it's up-do-date, with good cameras and lenses, sometimes no worse than any international station. But when it comes to safety issues, I was shocked that basically 99 per cent of those journalists had no basic safety equipment and no idea about safety training.

A couple of days ago I met a Ukrainian journalist who was going to film the troubles in the Paris suburbs, and she was complaining that the editor didn't want to send her with a full-size camera instead of a mini DVD cam. I persuaded her that it was much better for her crew to have something lightweight, which would make it easier to work. But at the same time, they didn't even plan to take gas masks or flak jackets.

Something has to be done, probably with the help of INSI and big international companies, to introduce the idea of safety training and also try to share experiences with the editors and bosses of private, independent channels in those countries. Otherwise, we might see a lot of casualties from their staff in the near future.

Elizabeth Palmer: Gisele Khoury joins us now by satellite from Beirut. She's the widow of Samir Qasir, who was murdered by a car bomb in June of this year. She's also a friend of May Chidiac, who was injured very badly just last month in another bomb in Beirut. Both of these bombings, as well as several others, occurred in the wake of [former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq] Hariri's death and the inquiry that's under way at the moment. Could you tell us whether the inquiry into Samir's death has turned up any real evidence under due process of law?

Gisele Khoury (presenter, Al Arabiya): What I have to say, first of all, is that the inquiries are being carried out in secret, and I don't have access to the information that the people in charge of the inquiry have access to. The dossier that is being put together in France is a very serious one. The leads are very serious, and there is a lot of co-operation and exchange of information between the judge, the investigating magistrate who was in charge of the investigation into the death of Hariri, and Jean-Louis Bruguière, who is investigating the assassination of Samir.

Regarding the Lebanese investigation, witnesses were heard but the most important ones have not yet been heard because they are in jail at this time. I believe other investigations should be undertaken.

Elizabeth Palmer: This is a good example of a killing that was carried out with huge political ends and enormous political pressure. How confident are you that an investigation inside Lebanon will be able to overcome political pressure, and find the culprits and really get to the truth?

Gisele Khoury: Things have changed since Fouad Siniora became prime minister. President [Emile] Lahud is now isolated. In that respect, investigating magistrates in Lebanon trust that they can achieve results. They're not as afraid as they were, but they need time. Judges were very afraid before the four generals were imprisoned and before there was a partial destruction of the Lebanese and Syrian security structures.

I don't know whether there are political pressures, but if there is a religious-backed party that is strong in Lebanon, and that party is responsible for the assassinations, there will be political pressure. But for the time being, I believe that the investigation under the new team is much more credible than it was a few months ago.