Working in Baghdad
| 12:52 UK time, Wednesday, 30 May 2007
A year ago, I wrote about the difficulties of working in Baghdad.
On 29 May 2006, our colleagues Paul Douglas and James Brolan from CBS News the US military unit they were accompanying in the Iraqi capital. Exactly, 12 months later, the kidnap of five British nationals has given us further cause to stop and ask some hard questions about what we do in Baghdad.
The ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ has had a permanent presence in the Iraqi capital for more than a decade - not always with a reporter (we were thrown out at some points under Saddam). But - just as in many of the world's other trouble spots - it's important that we're there, on the ground, eyewitnesses to what's going on in Baghdad, explaining the context - something we can only reflect by being there. That's why we don't base ourselves in the so-called Green Zone. Instead the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ bureau is in the "red zone" - among those who continue to try and make a life in Baghdad.
I hope you'll understand why I won't go into too much detail about the precautions that we take, but safe to say our team there work in some of the most difficult conditions imaginable.
We have a group of people based in Baghdad - ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ employees not contractors - whose job is to worry about the security of our operation. And we don't spend all day on the roof of the bureau - most days we get out and about.
As I write, I'm watching Paul Wood on ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ World interviewing Canon Andrew White, the Anglican minister in the Iraqi capital; he's being interviewed by the famous "Saddam Swords" across the river from our bureau. The team will have passed a number of Iraqi and American checkpoints to get there, with all the risk that entails.
Every time we leave the bureau it's a major logistical operation - but it's the only way to get to the story. We keep the situation under constant review - balancing the risk, with our ability to tell the story.
We remain in Baghdad because Iraq remains the defining story of our time. At any one time, we have a team of more than a dozen based in the Iraqi capital, both Iraqi and Western nationals. It is only because of their courage - and their belief in the story - that we can continue to do so.
Comments
I have a great deal of admiration for the reporters and others who work in very dangerous places like Baghdad and other places. They put their lives on the line so that we can know what is going on in the world.
I would be interested to know if this kind of job makes it very difficult if the reporter is married or has children. I suppose I assume that most reporters that go to such dangerous places are single. Is this true?
These brave war correspondents have indomitable courage in reporting the unadulterated truth. They are determined to analyze the situations regardless of the dangers involved. We owe them our deepest gratitude for they open our eyes to the futility of wars and conflict and make us realise how inept our politicians are in resolving conflicts. There are very few politicians who are worth their salt especially when we think of Iraq and the fiasco that has resulted and especially the deaths and kidnapping of courageous journalists. We can only hope and pray the situation improves.
These decisions, these actions, and the unavoidable loss of life that have come and will follow are yet more examples of the tragedy of the American adventure in Iraq.
The leader for this column was "worth the risk." For whom, I wonder, is the risk justified? For the individual journalist weighing the risks of maiming and death against career advancement? For the news agency weighing the costs of precautiouns and personnel losses against the value of a "live feed?"
I think you'd like to argue that it is we, the public, for whom the risk is worth it. For myself, I have to disappoint you. I would not risk a scraped knee to the lowest of interpreters for the chance of another sound-bite about the disaster that has befallen Iraq.
That's why all the world always keep on close watch on ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ News.
I think it is to your credit that you attempt to mantain news coverage. I do think two elements of your culture actually increase the risk to your staff. Firstly you could use more local people to report from areas not accessible to westerners. Secondly you could report from more stable areas - not just reports selectively from the most violent areas. I can't remember the last time I saw a report from the Kurdish areas which are doing so well (perhaps you don't like to report from areas that are safer/doing well - is it off message?)
i for one believe it or not, envy people who are working out there, be it soldiering or reporting. the fact is this is very dangerous terrain with a big twist of GO, and i am sure Alan like all out there know the score. it takes a lot of brave people!
so to all you anti war cowards, except the fact that war will never go away as long as we are human, you foolish dreamers!