What our other readers are saying:
Too much reporting?
Correspondents are free to do as they please. If they can assess the risks and decide that they are ones they can accept, then that is their choice and theirs alone. However (and this is in no way a dig on Jill Carroll, but rather a generalization), the understanding that you might be out of luck if you get in trouble is necessary. Many independent reporters may go in thinking that they accept the risks, but when it really gets heated, they expect someone will come to their aid and save them.
Also, I think that there can be a point where there is too much reporting. It is fine to be informed, but sometimes this desire to inform the masses worsens the situation. Recent terrorist efforts have been a good example of this. Terrorists live off of publicity – it spreads their message of fear further and further. With so much reporting, an element of fear-mongering kicks in, giving terrorists what they most desire.
LJ McKay, London, England
Time to make connections
The press should be more careful, for sure, but I know that that's highly individualized, and that the dangers change every day. I'd like to see more staffers, and less American freelancers, but I'd also like to hear directly from the stringers papers use. I'd like to get to know the people in Baghdad, Lebanon, and other war zones a little bit more.
In-depth, personal profiles are what I'm interested in – voices from these cities in their own words, not edited into quick bytes or quotes. I'm a mother of two young children, and I'd be very interested in interviewing an Iraqi mother of two little ones about her life, her hopes for her children, her worries. Would a "person-to-person" conversation like that be of interest to your readers, too? That sort of thing would be building the bridges of communication, understanding and empathy this world so desperately needs.
Sara Au, Orlando, Fla., USA
The military protects our freedom – and that includes freedom of the press
Thank goodness for those brave, dedicated reporters who enable our free press. As Americans, we should be very proud indeed!
Professional journalists should report from war zones while embedded with the military, but they should also be allowed to tell their stories independently.
Freedom of the press is the foundation of our American freedom. Our military maintains American freedom, and that includes protecting journalists, the people that bring us freedom of the press.
Daniel C. Carson, Gilbert, Ariz., USA
A freelance writer's perspective
I am a freelance writer, covering different things for one of the main newspapers in San Joaquin County, as well as writing stories for magazines, and it's not an easy living.
I can understand Ms. Carroll's wish to get out and report real news, to get away from the cubicle. And I too have often thought of going to Iraq, or Indonesia, my birthplace, and reporting from there.
So, yes, I do understand why Ms. Carroll went to Iraq. But then, I'm not a great supporter of embedding journalists with troops. You only get one side of the story: the government's. Let's admit it, do we as reporters actually want to be dependent on the government to help us cover the news?
Yes, I understand safety. But reporters don't have an easy job. Whether in war situations or reporting corruption or other things, reporters have been killed doing their job.
As conservatives like to say, freedom isn't free. Well, freedom of the press comes at a high price as well.
Les Mahler, Livermore, Calif., USA
Forced embedding would threaten the free press
There are no easy answers. The courageous journalists who choose to cover war zones independently bring the world information that would otherwise go unreported. Freedom of the press is a costly priority but it should always be the choice of the journalist if he or she chooses to report from war zones.
Unfortunately, countries of the Middle East and third-world nations do not value a free press. Covering wars will always mean danger to journalists, and sadly there will always be casualties among the correspondents who cover wars. But to require journalists to be embeded with our military poses an even greater threat to a free press. To the valiant men and women covering war zones, we are forever in your debt.
Kathryn Raymore, Carmel, Ind., USA
Leave it up to trusted news organizations
I think the decision to be embedded or be independent should be left to the individual reporter and his or her organization. They will be the best judge of the situation, as long as their reporting is factual and unbiased. We the public must be thankful and appreciate the risk reporters like Jill took to get us worthwhile news.
Davidson Avu, Honiara, Solomon Islands
Uncommon courage, and a personal decision
Some people – particularly correspondents like Jill Carroll freelancing in Iraq – are brave, and their dedication, spirit of adventure, and other sources of courage motivate them to put themselves in fairly obvious harm's way. Others of us – maybe most of us – are not so. As Ms. Carroll's story shows, even such brave people can become thoroughly terrified when the risks they take turn on them. But still, under such conditions, they show a lot more courage than many of us would or could.
The answer to the question posed, then, is that it behooves a war-zone reporter to be realistic about the risks he or she is taking or would take. They must take the time to imagine how they might hold up if something went very wrong. I think each reporter would be wise to weigh the positives – the wonderful good their reporting from war zones can bring the world, as well as the enriching experiences they themselves may gain – against the horror that can also happen. Then each should make his or her own decision. Why should it be anyone else's?
Jay Wiley, San Diego, Calif., USA
'Blending in' doesn't work
Correspondents should be embedded with the military, as seen throughout the entire war in Iraq. No one is safe from insurgents, especially anyone who appears to be of western background. In every attampt to blend in with the locals, as Jill Carroll did by wearing a Hijab, and an Abaya, her appearance was still western. When making contact with supposed secure persons, you never know who will sell you out, for money, threats, or political profit.
Robert Cox, Plymouth, Mass., USA
Stay away from unsafe areas, and tap the knowledge of locals
I think whenever possible, news outlets should use local people who live in the region for information. It is hard to understand a people who seem to put so little value on human life. Correspondents should remain constantly aware of the danger, and strive to report only from safe locations. It may constrict the information they can acquire, but if they are captured or killed, there is no information, and certainly nothing gained from their sacrifice.
Ronald Passmore, Lebanon, Ore., USA
For some correspondents, reporting is life
I've been heavily reading The Independent for coverage of the Israeli Lebanese conflict. There is something very special about the reports from Robert Fisk who is just living in Lebanon. For some people in life, their purpose is to bring such knowledge to the masses. And if they die doing what they love, they are at peace with it.
There is no replacement for coverage of such events from within the populations of both sides. The reporters should know the risks, and accept them openly. At the same time, all reasonable precautions should be taken. Life is full of risks. And to fully cover conflicts, risks must be taken. To deprive correspondents of the ability to take such risks would be to deprive some of them of their purpose in life.
Christopher Haima, Iowa City, Iowa, USA
