James Foley is a reminder why freelance reporting is so dangerous
By Tina Carr, Special to CNN
updated 7:47 AM EDT, Thu August 21, 2014
Editor's note: Tina Carr is the Director of the Rory Peck Trust, a London-based NGO dedicated to the support, safety and welfare of freelance newsgatherers around the world. The trust is named after freelance war cameraman Rory Peck who was killed while on assignment in Moscow in 1993. The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
(CNN) -- Freelance journalist James Foley was brutally killed yesterday after being held for 21 months by Islamic militants in Syria. Despite the increasing dangers of working in the region, despite the many journalists who have been kidnapped or are still missing, and despite dreading this news, it has taken us all by surprise and we are deeply, deeply shocked.
Freelance journalists, photographers and video journalists have always played a vital role in newsgathering, and their contribution today is more important than ever. They make a crucial contribution to the free flow of information that is an essential part of a democratic society and fully deserve our support and protection.
Our Trust works with freelancers on a daily basis -- helping them, helping their families, and sometimes working with them to help other freelancers. And James was one of these. We worked with him, helping him financially as he and his colleagues searched for missing colleagues in Syria. We stayed in touch.
James' kidnap and death is yet another tragic reminder of the very real dangers facing journalists today. Over the past two years, around 70 journalists have been killed covering the conflict in Syria, and a further 20 journalists currently remain missing, including freelancer Austin Tice.
The Committee to Protect Journalists say that the last two years have been the most dangerous for journalists on record, with 174 confirmed deaths since 2012. Not only this, but threats, intimidation, assaults and kidnappings are becoming every day challenges for journalists working around the world. Reuters columnist David Rohde writes: "Syria today is the scene of the single largest wave of kidnappings in modern journalism, more than in Iraq during the 2000s or Lebanon during the 1980s."
These are terrible facts.
So, what of the freelancers? Who negotiates for them? Who sends in security consultants to try and get them out? Who helps their families?
Freelance journalists like James often work alone without the resources and support of large news organizations behind them -- they are always the most vulnerable to these dangers. The Rory Peck Trust has been supporting and assisting freelancers for almost two decades, and we've never seen a demand for our assistance like this before.
It's not just freelancers travelling to conflict zones who are at risk. The majority of newsgatherers killed each year are journalists working in their own countries.
Freelance photographers, fixers and camera operators covering and reporting on conflicts that are affecting their own communities are often the most vulnerable. They're unable to leave areas when it becomes too dangerous, or when their reporting is exposed, and are frequently threatened, attacked and accused of being traitors for working with international news organizations.
So, how to protect freelancers? How to help them work securely? Our organization gives financial and other practical support to freelancers in trouble. We offer online resources on safety & security for those reporting from dangerous environments, and run a Training Fund that provides bursaries for freelancers to enable them to undergo hostile environments training before travelling to a conflict zone. This training can teach freelancers how to assess risk and spot danger, handle a crisis, support others and give vital first aid. The right training can save lives.
Although our focus is specifically on freelancers, we are only one of the many organizations that exist to support journalists worldwide. Committee to Protect Journalists, Reporters Without Borders and IFJ all have security guides that can help freelancers be more prepared in situations of crisis. The International News Safety Institute offers up-to-date information about the security situation on the ground for journalists, and RISC offers vital first-aid training.
There's no question that conflict journalism has always been a dangerous occupation -- and how very wrong that is! So when we talk about protection, when we talk about security, we are talking about every sector of the news industry, whether news employers, staff or freelancers. In this brutal new world, everyone must be prepared to take responsibility -- for themselves and for others.
James Foley was a freelancer in the truest and most honorable sense -- a talented journalist and an exceptional human being. Our thoughts are with his family at this tragic time, and with the families of all other journalists currently being held in Syria.
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Saturday, August 30, 2014
Journalism's Risks Have Never Been More Intense
Editorial from Saturday's Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette (August 30, 2014):
Published: August 30, 2014 3:00 a.m.
Journalism's risks have never been more intense
Our friend Gary Pruitt, the president of the Associated Press, was on a recent Sunday news show and made a few points that in this day of anti-media sentiment are worth noting.
Pruitt naturally emphasized the AP. But what he says can be broadened to include all the Western media. Pruitt appeared on CNN's “Reliable Sources.” What prompted his comments was the beheading of James Foley of the Global Post by an Islamist nicknamed Jihadi John.
“It has been a difficult year, and a more dangerous time for journalists,” Pruitt told host Brian Stelter. “It's the most dangerous we've ever seen it, in part because journalists are being targeted now.
“It wasn't too many years ago that journalists would have emblazoned on their vests – press – or they'd be riding in vehicles that would have 'press' written on the vehicle, to provide a degree of more safety because combatants typically wouldn't target the media.”
Pruitt said the AP had lost 33 journalists in its history, beginning with the Battle of the Little Big Horn (in 1876) and with the latest death about two weeks ago. An AP video journalist, Simone Camilli, was killed Aug. 13 along with a freelance Palestinian translator working with him when ordnance left from Israeli-Hamas fighting exploded as they were reporting on the aftermath of the war in the Gaza Strip.
The excesses of the media are major topics on other TV and radio shows. Gasbags are frequently critical of what this reporter or that photographer did. But some of our colleagues, like Foley, pay the ultimate price in trying to cover the news.
Published: August 30, 2014 3:00 a.m.
Journalism's risks have never been more intense
Our friend Gary Pruitt, the president of the Associated Press, was on a recent Sunday news show and made a few points that in this day of anti-media sentiment are worth noting.
Pruitt naturally emphasized the AP. But what he says can be broadened to include all the Western media. Pruitt appeared on CNN's “Reliable Sources.” What prompted his comments was the beheading of James Foley of the Global Post by an Islamist nicknamed Jihadi John.
“It has been a difficult year, and a more dangerous time for journalists,” Pruitt told host Brian Stelter. “It's the most dangerous we've ever seen it, in part because journalists are being targeted now.
“It wasn't too many years ago that journalists would have emblazoned on their vests – press – or they'd be riding in vehicles that would have 'press' written on the vehicle, to provide a degree of more safety because combatants typically wouldn't target the media.”
Pruitt said the AP had lost 33 journalists in its history, beginning with the Battle of the Little Big Horn (in 1876) and with the latest death about two weeks ago. An AP video journalist, Simone Camilli, was killed Aug. 13 along with a freelance Palestinian translator working with him when ordnance left from Israeli-Hamas fighting exploded as they were reporting on the aftermath of the war in the Gaza Strip.
The excesses of the media are major topics on other TV and radio shows. Gasbags are frequently critical of what this reporter or that photographer did. But some of our colleagues, like Foley, pay the ultimate price in trying to cover the news.
The End of the Printed Newspaper?
Here are three paragraphs from a very stimulating story on the future of newspapers. Be sure to click through to the entire article using the link at the end of this excerpt.
The Roanoke Times, the local paper in my family home, is a classic metro daily, with roots that go back to the 1880s. Like most such papers, it ran into trouble in the middle of last decade, as print advertising revenue fell, leaving a hole in the balance sheet that digital advertising couldn’t fill. When the 2008 recession accelerated those problems, the Times’ parent company, Landmark, began looking for a buyer, eventually selling it to Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Media Group in 2013. The acquisition was greeted with relief in the newsroom, as Buffett had famously assured the employees at his earlier purchases “Your paper will operate from a position of financial strength.” Three months after acquiring the Times, BH Media fired 31 employees, a bit over a tenth of the workforce.
Many people have lamented the unpredictability in the media environment occasioned by the arrival of digital devices and networks, but the slow implosion of newspapers has been widely and correctly predicted for some time now. Print ad revenues have fallen 65% in a decade, 2013 saw the lowest ever recorded, and 2014 will be worse. Even a company like BH Media, with deep pockets and a long term outlook, can’t make a profit without cutting expenses, and can’t cut expenses without cutting jobs.
What happened in Roanoke — gradual financial decay punctuated by bouts of firing — is the normal case at papers all over the country, and more is coming. The next wave of consolidation is already upon us; big media firms like Tribune and Gannett are abandoning their newspapers (“spinning them off”, in bloodless business parlance.) If you are a journalist at a print publication, your job is in danger. Period. Time to do something about it.
To read the full article, click here.
The Roanoke Times, the local paper in my family home, is a classic metro daily, with roots that go back to the 1880s. Like most such papers, it ran into trouble in the middle of last decade, as print advertising revenue fell, leaving a hole in the balance sheet that digital advertising couldn’t fill. When the 2008 recession accelerated those problems, the Times’ parent company, Landmark, began looking for a buyer, eventually selling it to Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Media Group in 2013. The acquisition was greeted with relief in the newsroom, as Buffett had famously assured the employees at his earlier purchases “Your paper will operate from a position of financial strength.” Three months after acquiring the Times, BH Media fired 31 employees, a bit over a tenth of the workforce.
Many people have lamented the unpredictability in the media environment occasioned by the arrival of digital devices and networks, but the slow implosion of newspapers has been widely and correctly predicted for some time now. Print ad revenues have fallen 65% in a decade, 2013 saw the lowest ever recorded, and 2014 will be worse. Even a company like BH Media, with deep pockets and a long term outlook, can’t make a profit without cutting expenses, and can’t cut expenses without cutting jobs.
What happened in Roanoke — gradual financial decay punctuated by bouts of firing — is the normal case at papers all over the country, and more is coming. The next wave of consolidation is already upon us; big media firms like Tribune and Gannett are abandoning their newspapers (“spinning them off”, in bloodless business parlance.) If you are a journalist at a print publication, your job is in danger. Period. Time to do something about it.
To read the full article, click here.
Why You Might Want to Ditch Your E-Reader
Why you might want to ditch your e-reader and go back to printed books
By Caitlin Dewey August 21
If you’re one of those Luddites who still clings, technophobically, to the printed page, then a team of European researchers has some good news for you:
You have again been vindicated.
This latest study on the differences between e-readers and printed books — which was presented at an Italian conference last month and reported this week in Britain’s Guardian newspapaer — asked 50 people to read a short story and take a comprehension test afterwards. Half the readers got the story on a Kindle; the other half got paperbacks; everybody got the same story. But when it came to the test, results diverged: The Kindle readers, it turned out, were far worse at remembering the story’s plot than were the print readers.
To read the full article, click here.
By Caitlin Dewey August 21
If you’re one of those Luddites who still clings, technophobically, to the printed page, then a team of European researchers has some good news for you:
You have again been vindicated.
This latest study on the differences between e-readers and printed books — which was presented at an Italian conference last month and reported this week in Britain’s Guardian newspapaer — asked 50 people to read a short story and take a comprehension test afterwards. Half the readers got the story on a Kindle; the other half got paperbacks; everybody got the same story. But when it came to the test, results diverged: The Kindle readers, it turned out, were far worse at remembering the story’s plot than were the print readers.
To read the full article, click here.
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
The Value of an Internship
Here's some great perspective for journalism students on the value of having an internship with a publication:
http://www.freeportpress.com/how-to-succeed-in-magazines-without-really-trying/
http://www.freeportpress.com/how-to-succeed-in-magazines-without-really-trying/
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
USA Today Owner Spins Off Newspaper Business
USA Today owner spins off newspaper biz
By Brian Stelter @brianstelter August 5, 2014: 11:22 AM ET
Gannett, the owner of USA Today, joins the long line of TV-focused media companies to split off its newspaper business.
The spin-off plan, announced Tuesday morning, means the newspaper company will go it alone in a challenging print environment.
The television stations and websites currently owned by Gannett (GCI) will be operated under a new name, while the publishing company will retain the Gannett name. But make no mistake: it's the papers that are being shed.
"Gannett's newspapers are a drag on its earnings," news industry analyst Ken Doctor wrote in a blog post ahead of Tuesday's announcement. He said Gannett is "now alone among the big newspaper companies" -- all of its peers have already enacted similar spin-offs.
Tribune (TRBAA) was the most recent. The spin-off of its publishing unit took effect Monday, which means newspapers like The Los Angeles Times are now separate from Tribune's more lucrative television assets.
Through a complex transaction announced just last week, two owners of both newspapers and TV stations, E.W. Scripps and Journal Communications, agreed to combine their stations and spin off their papers.
Time Warner (TWX), the parent of CNN, spun off its magazine unit, Time Inc., earlier this year.
Doctor wrote Monday that "the standard three-word explanation for all these splits is the desire to 'maximize shareholder value.'"
Indeed. Gannett also said its spin-off would give each company a "more competitive position" in the marketplace.
Gannett CEO Gracia Martore, who will run the broadcasting company, said, "The bold actions we are announcing today are significant next steps in our ongoing initiatives to increase shareholder value by building scale, increasing cash flow, sharpening management focus, and strengthening all of our businesses to compete effectively in today's increasingly digital landscape."
By Brian Stelter @brianstelter August 5, 2014: 11:22 AM ET
Gannett, the owner of USA Today, joins the long line of TV-focused media companies to split off its newspaper business.
The spin-off plan, announced Tuesday morning, means the newspaper company will go it alone in a challenging print environment.
The television stations and websites currently owned by Gannett (GCI) will be operated under a new name, while the publishing company will retain the Gannett name. But make no mistake: it's the papers that are being shed.
"Gannett's newspapers are a drag on its earnings," news industry analyst Ken Doctor wrote in a blog post ahead of Tuesday's announcement. He said Gannett is "now alone among the big newspaper companies" -- all of its peers have already enacted similar spin-offs.
Tribune (TRBAA) was the most recent. The spin-off of its publishing unit took effect Monday, which means newspapers like The Los Angeles Times are now separate from Tribune's more lucrative television assets.
Through a complex transaction announced just last week, two owners of both newspapers and TV stations, E.W. Scripps and Journal Communications, agreed to combine their stations and spin off their papers.
Time Warner (TWX), the parent of CNN, spun off its magazine unit, Time Inc., earlier this year.
Doctor wrote Monday that "the standard three-word explanation for all these splits is the desire to 'maximize shareholder value.'"
Indeed. Gannett also said its spin-off would give each company a "more competitive position" in the marketplace.
Gannett CEO Gracia Martore, who will run the broadcasting company, said, "The bold actions we are announcing today are significant next steps in our ongoing initiatives to increase shareholder value by building scale, increasing cash flow, sharpening management focus, and strengthening all of our businesses to compete effectively in today's increasingly digital landscape."
Thursday, July 17, 2014
The Newspaper Crisis, By the Numbers
Here's a sobering--but realistic--look at what's happening in the newspaper industry. These are the first few paragraphs -- to read the entire article, click here.
The newspaper crisis, by the numbers
Roughly a decade after the commercial debut of the Internet, America’s newspapers posted record high advertising sales of $49.4 billion in 2005, leading many publishers to think their businesses would not be seriously affected by the digital revolution. But they were wrong.
Since hitting that high note in 2005, the industry has undergone a dramatic and traumatic contraction, losing nearly half of its print readership and more than a third of its revenues. With the pre-tax profits of the publicly held publishers cut by 39% since 2003, newsroom staffing has dropped to a historically low level. In spite of the declared determination of most publishers to pivot from print to pixels, the industry's share of the digital advertising market has plunged by more than 50%.
The newspaper crisis, by the numbers
Roughly a decade after the commercial debut of the Internet, America’s newspapers posted record high advertising sales of $49.4 billion in 2005, leading many publishers to think their businesses would not be seriously affected by the digital revolution. But they were wrong.
Since hitting that high note in 2005, the industry has undergone a dramatic and traumatic contraction, losing nearly half of its print readership and more than a third of its revenues. With the pre-tax profits of the publicly held publishers cut by 39% since 2003, newsroom staffing has dropped to a historically low level. In spite of the declared determination of most publishers to pivot from print to pixels, the industry's share of the digital advertising market has plunged by more than 50%.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
