A seminar for editors sponsored by The Crimes of War Project and The Freedom Forum

Day One, Panel Two:The Riskiest Job of All: Photography on the Frontline

Moderator/Discussant: Susan Moeller, Fellow, Joan Shorenstein Center on Press
Politics and Public Policy, The John F. Kennedy School, Harvard University

Discussion

JOHN OWEN: On that point I think the audience should weigh in. But in hearing these three stories, I think they illustrate all the concerns about the way they work. The fact, amazingly, that they're all still with us given the kind of chances they've taken, and that might be what they learn from experience and also maybe they were lucky. And it need not necessarily be that way. And I think what's disappointing here is -and Chris Kramer, the president of CNNI, talked about this recently and he can talk about it tomorrow-there are no formal safety training programs linked to insurance for freelance journalists in this country.

And Gary and I think Ron have done the courses now in Britain. And if you were at
the Freedom Forum on Monday night- this coming Monday night- you would see the re-launch of what we call the subsidized freelance schemes. This means that if you're a freelancer, thanks to the support of the BBC, CNN, the Financial Times, the Guardian, and us, you can go through one of the courses- and you'll hear about one of these course from Paul Rees in Centurion-that run for three or four days and what would normally cost 1000 pounds, costs 250 pounds.

And beyond going through the course--and this is the key--is that you then get
insurance. These guys have never had insurance. And I think it's scandalous, again, that American news magazines and newspapers are living off their work without being prepared to up front finance their training and finance their insurance or at least make sure they have access to insurance.

And the wisdom exists. We know about this. These programs work. And young, old
dogs can learn new tricks. But I think the time is long overdue for someone to take leadership in ensuring that if you are commissioning somebody, you make sure they're trained and insured.

And David Feingold, former CNN bureau chief in London, formerly managing editor of
Reuters, used to talk about the moral slippery slope, and he defined it this way. He said, if a freelance photographer approaches an editor about going somewhere that he's unwilling to send a staff photographer to--Chechnya, East Timor--and has made a decision that it's too dangerous an assignment, then the moral slippery slope can work this way and it slides this way. The most moral thing to do, to say to that photographer is, this is too dangerous a story. We think you might get killed. Don't send us any pictures. We're not going to run them, because your life is too important.

But instead what happens, as usual, is you get there. We're not paying you anything up front, and if you get the pictures, then we'll consider them, which is an informal sanction to go there and take a risk that your own staff photographer won't be in a position to take.

And Feingold said, it's either one or the other. You either make sure they are trained
and given insurance or the alternative position is we're not taking them even in the most competitive of situations. That might be an editorial suicide note, I realize, for any editor to say here are great pictures from Chechnya by somebody we didn't think it was a good idea to go to. I realize that.

But in an exaggerated kind of way I think the responsible thing is to make sure they're trained, make sure that they have access to insurance and then make sure that you support them when they come back. Because in hearing these stories, they obviously have some things to talk about as well.

And that's another part of what's going on now. There are programs for post-traumatic stress disorder. You're going to hear about them tomorrow. There's a survey that we're collaborating with Anthony Feinstein from the University of Toronto to make sure that journalists that have been in conflict areas are having an opportunity to fill out questionnaires. That there is data, and for the first time they'll be some information that links long time experience in some of these horrific conflicts to what we now know to be something that's eminently diagnosable and treatable.

A PARTICIPANT: John, if I can take up from you. I know you and I have discussed this many times before, but I accept it for editors. You can't train every freelancer that comes through your door. But what could be done through, for example, the National Union of Journalists in England, the National Press Photographers Association here, through some of the universities who run media courses here, is to have training programs that are subsidized. And if you could get together through one of these associations or organizations 1,000 freelance photographers, you have a lot of buying power when you go to an insurance broker and ask for an insurance program.

GARY KNIGHT: Ron and I both take out insurance and it isn't that expensive, and it could be an awful lot cheaper and really attainable for a lot of young freelance photographers if you could organize them collectively. And it's not really a difficult thing to do, and I think through the auspices of possibly the Freedom Forum. These are things that you should really be discussing as editors and people who are out there generating stories. You have to be responsible for the people who are providing you with your material. Freelance photographers are the most vulnerable and exposed people in the field without question, and it wouldn't really take very much to alleviate much of that risk if you were to take the initiative, and I know you'd get a very good response from the photographers.

STEVE LEHMAN: Definitely. I think it's important for institutions to take the lead on this. I mean everyone wants the information, but are they willing to put up the resources to help protect the people who are gathering it? And every organization uses freelancers whether they like to or not, and the magazine industry is dominated by freelancers. But newspapers very often are using them too, especially in international situations. It's very, very rare that you're going to see a staff photographer from a major newspaper out on an international story, only on
the very largest international stories usually.

GARY KNIGHT: Especially in terms of conflict. You'll rarely see a staff photographer at a conflict.

A PARTICIPANT: But I think it's shocking, and I won't mention the magazine, but there was an American news magazine that only gave guarantees during a very dangerous period in Bosnia deliberately to avoid having responsibility for the people working for them. So you really have to think about these issues, they really are crucial.

A PARTICIPANT: I think, Roy, we have time for one or two questions.

ERIC STOVER: I thought it was quite remarkable today to have our Secretary of State
speaking about the tribunals and the effect that it's had on U.S. policy and so on. And to think that the tribunals have affected not only government policy and diplomacy but also military strategy in Kosovo where the jets went in under the banner of a war crimes indictment.

As photographers and journalists, this new situation with ad hoc tribunals raises very
profound questions. And my question to you would be how do you feel, have you thought through this process that although your photographs may be available in the public domain, you also have outtakes which you keep in your own portfolios. And you may be called on at the tribunals to give evidence at some time. And what are the implications there that you, as an individual, may decide that you're going to testify, but in doing so it could have far-reaching implications for other photographers in the field in terms of being vulnerable and getting access and so on.

RON HAVIV: It's a good question. I mean it's a situation that I had to deal with the War Crimes Tribunal for these photographs of Arcan and his men executing these civilians. And it was something that I definitely thought about and wasn't sure exactly how to handle it. The initial thing I did was I gave them access to all the photographs that had been published and told them to come back to me if that wasn't enough to help them. And the photographs that were in the public domain were enough for what they needed at that time. Had Arcan gone to trial, it would have been a very interesting situation for me what I would have done in terms of testifying, in terms of whether or not I thought it would be dangerous for me, and if it would have set a precedent for other photographers. But what I think is happening in the field is that
all the combatants are realizing or have really very good knowledge of the power of the press and are taking that into account as the situation unfolds.

If you look at what happened in Indonesia where it was very difficult for journalists to
work during the East Timor conflict, I think that we've reached a level where these people really want to control us as much as possible. And one of the reasons is that they don't want any evidence for all these war crimes tribunals that are coming into existence.

GARY KNIGHT: On another issue here, I personally would have absolutely no problems testifying at a war crimes tribunal. But I would have a really serious problem if the British police wanted my pictures of a demonstration in Northern Ireland, for example. So I think these issues have to be taken on a case-by-case basis. And I know that's very dodgey moral ground, but I think you just have to deal with it as it comes.

STEVEN LEHMAN: One thing that concerns me, having heard Madeleine Albright speak about what the U.S. Government is doing in relation to war crimes, I feel that a lot of times on the governmental level, especially if the U.S. is focusing either on human rights or they're focusing on war crimes, it means that they're not doing other things. It means that they're not really going out and trying to solve the problems. It's almost a poker chip they throw up to show that we're doing something, we're concerned, and we're active. But really going underground, as far as trying to solve the root causes of these conflicts and make real changes or implement policy or take a stand, they're not doing that.

MR. BODE: Thank you. I'm Ken Bode, and I work at Medill School of Journalism out at Northwestern University. Aside from all the fun you guys have described, you talk about this just being used as illustrations of the text. And I must tell you that I think it's just the opposite. When I think of the power that photograph has had in shaping public opinion in this country about these wars, I think it's probably the most important thing that has changed and molded public opinion. When I think about the Sarajevo market, for example, or about Somalia. Or about that Time Magazine cover of the refugees fleeing in Bosnia and a woman is walking in a line of refugees and she is nursing a baby, trying to do the most simply ordinary human task that is possible to imagine in the middle of this. I think it moved so many people. And I'm sorry that you guys don't really think you're appreciated, because I will tell you at least in this precinct here you are really appreciated.

A PARTICIPANT: Thank you for that.

A PARTICIPANT: I work for a paper that's really driven by photographs and I've had world stories that I wanted to get on page 1 that didn't get there because there wasn't a good enough photograph. And I've had other world stories that got out there because there was a great photograph and there was really something else I wanted to put out. So it's moving in your direction.

SUSAN MOELLER: If I can speak here just for a second for the photographers. I don't
think when they and I speak about photographs as illustrations, and I, too, have been a photographer in combat and have also written a book on war photography, that we're talking about illustrations not having any impact. What we're talking about is that they aren't integrated into the story and the event as a whole, and that they are often a gross simplification of what's happening. And I think the classic example is a famine where you see pictures of the starving babies, which certainly get people's attention. But this leads people to the assumption that you feed the babies and the crisis is over when most of us in this room I'm sure are well aware that famines are much more complicated than that. So I think that's the dilemma that photographers wrestle with. Certainly I would suggest that the three people here are photographers because they care a great deal and believe their work does have incredible meaning.

A PARTICIPANT: Just on that same point, what's the reason for it not being integrated? Do the photographers find that the reporters do not willingly work with them in the field? That's some of the problems that we have. There really is a sense sometimes among the reporters that the photographers are complicating matters, especially in a sensitive situation. So who's at fault here?

GARY KNIGHT: Boy, that's a conversation that maybe we should have outside. It's multi-faceted. In my personal experience, it's generally not reporters in the field, it's generally a decision made back home.

STEVE LEHMAN: It also has a lot other do with the finances of it. If you look back at the history of photojournalism and magazine reporting, in the '50s and '60s there used to be much more of an integration between the photographs and text of the story. And people in those days a photographer and a writer were sent out together to do a story. And they would spend a month or six weeks and go out and work together, and they had the time and they had the money to do that.

Today, because of financial constraints, people don't want to pay us to go out for a month. They want to get that in a day or two days or three days because it's expensive. It's really an expensive thing to send a photographer off on an assignment or to send a writer on an assignment. Then if you have to send both of them it doubles the cost. I think that is a very significant reason why there is not that integration. But it also has to do with the power structures at magazines or newspapers and how people view the different mediums. For me,
the integration of the two is really, really important. I mean that's what's interesting to me. And sometimes you have people who are also like that. Other times there are editors who just aren't interested in that. So there's many different reasons.