Protection Of Journalists (Press, 23 August 1980)

In August 1980, the ongoing dangers faced by journalists around the world were highlighted in a piece published by the Economist. The article noted that journalists frequently find themselves in peril due to their reporting and the reactions it provokes from various factions. A recent incident involved an American journalist detained in Bolivia, whose release was facilitated by both the Economist and Financial Times. The piece also discussed the plight of 400 journalists in South Korea who lost their jobs, as well as the expulsion of representatives from the BBC and Reuters due to threats from Syrian authorities in Beirut. The struggles faced by American and British reporters in Iran were also mentioned, as they abruptly left the country after the government claimed it could no longer ensure their safety. The dangerous environment for journalists was further underscored by the assassination of a columnist in Milan earlier that year. In light of these threats, the article proposed the consideration of providing journalists with international protection, similar to that of the Red Cross. This proposal was expected to be put forward at an upcoming UNESCO meeting in Belgrade, driven by director-general Amadou M’Bow and influenced by Sean MacBride, a former Irish foreign minister. However, the article expressed skepticism about the feasibility and effectiveness of such protection, questioning who would issue "safe-conduct cards" to journalists and the criteria for determining which journalists warranted protection. It suggested that the plan might create more complications than solutions, having previously met resistance since the Vietnam War era. An addendum to the Geneva Conventions, stating that journalists are to be treated as civilians during dangerous missions, had been made, yet actual consequences of the proposed safe-conduct cards were likely to be minimal. The article illuminated the greater threats journalists face from terrorism, authoritarian governments, and violent law enforcement, as compared to traditional warfare. There was concern that the introduction of official accreditation could provide oppressive regimes with justification to expel journalists, potentially crippling their ability to report on human rights abuses and other sensitive issues. The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) in Britain was noted as one of the few supporters of MacBride’s proposition, willing to evaluate British journalists for international endorsement on behalf of the British government. Nevertheless, there was apprehension regarding this move, hinting that it might restrict journalists further both domestically and internationally. The British Ministry of Overseas Development, responsible for representing Britain at the UNESCO meeting, was depicted as hesitant and uncertain about how to approach the issue if it arises. The article concluded by acknowledging the lack of enthusiasm from civil servants to champion for press freedom, as they often regard journalists as less respectable than diplomats, perceiving them as adversaries due to their role in unearthing truths that officials would rather keep concealed.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand