[DRAFT] Freedom of Reportage in War

[Unibot]

Kuno nodded and finished his draft, with his editor removing all of the unnecessary *like*s, and passed the freshly inked draft to the other ambassadors.

"It's cool, man, you should *like* read it." Kuno said, as an ambassador decided to eat it, instead.

Freedom of Reportage in War
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.
Category: Education and Creativity | Area of Effect: Free Press

The General Assembly,

Understanding that numerous member-nations encourage or enforce the publishing of propagandist materials against their international member-nations,

Appalled at the glorification of war and military conflict that is manufactured by member-nations through a stranglehold on media reportage,

Optimistic that with the end of the glorification and propaganda of war will come a more educated and peaceful global community,

Defining for the purposes of this document,
(a) Propaganda as the dissemination of rhetoric aimed to influence a community’s perception toward some cause or position, by conveniently omitting any convincing and obvious counter-argument,
(b) Reporter as an employee, or self-employed public disseminator of the happenings in national or international events through any variation of media (employment indicates that said disseminator receives an income with their reportage),

Hereby:

1. Prohibiting all member-nation’s government from directly authorizing, encouraging or enforcing the publication of propaganda materials that refer to another nation and its political identity, a political representative of another nation or its military;

2. Further Prohibiting member-nations from delegating the power, right, duty or obligation to execute said commands to another entity;

3. Declares that all inhabitants of a member-nation have a right and freedom to record, photograph, discover and disseminate any depictions, enumerations, statistics and criticism of genuine effects, consequences and current and retrospective conditions of military conflicts, casualties and fatalities of war, in addition to any misery, pain, devastation, suffering, hunger, abuse, depression, destruction and loss which a military conflict may contribute to the local and international community abroad;

4. Reaffirms that all reporters retain said right and freedom -- even as an employed reporter -- to publicly record, criticize, photograph, discover and disseminate all of the aforementioned social, political and economic tribulations that may be contributed by any specific or general armed conflict;

5. Outlawing any national regulatory implementation by a member-nation that strives to reduce or prevent the criticism of military conflicts they participate in by corrupting, threatening, imprisoning, assaulting, executing or otherwise murdering the contributors of reportage;

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I'd give this an OK, but could you check to see that it does not accidentally allow exposure of military secrets? (this is not particularly our problem, but other member states may be concerned about this)

[Unibot]

I'd give this an OK, but could you check to see that it does not accidentally allow exposure of military secrets? (this is not particularly our problem, but other member states may be concerned about this)

I wrote it with that intention. Please tell me if it does otherwise...

[East Ying]

We support this resolution, but also urges the author to include a clause explaining any consequences of a member state to restrict such reporting, or to member states who oversee, order or otherwise harm reporters who are on the battlefield.

[Aranoff]

While the Allied States of Aranoff support free media, with the ability to report on the happenings of conflict, we feel that sometimes certain information that may not be considered military secrets or a threat to national security can still threaten to impose upon the will of the government to run an effective war. We understand that there is information that the public may feel entitled to, but we feel that the government has a duty to stop the dissemination of certain materials.

[Unibot]

A small rewrite...

3. Declares that all members of a member-nation have a right and freedom to record, photograph, discover and disseminate any depictions, statistics and criticism of genuine effects, consequences and current and retrospective conditions of military conflicts, casualties and fatalities of war, in addition to any misery, pain, devastation, suffering, hunger, abuse, depression, destruction and loss which a military conflict may contribute to the local and international community abroad;

The details of future plans are unnecessary, it's the effects, the consequences and current and retrospective conditions of warzones and military conflicts which the media has the right and freedom to report on, according to the World Assembly.

[Aranoff]

We simply believe that allowing journalists into warzones to gather sensationalist news stories to be a tremendous burden to our troops who might fire upon them in err, or be forced to their rescue and thereby alter mission plans. Further, we believe that journalists have no right on the battlefield to report upon as they are not fighting a battle and would only hinder forward momentum.

That said, while we find the aims of this proposal noteworthy, we simply cannot allow for any journalist to put themselves in harms way.

[Unibot]

That said, while we find the aims of this proposal noteworthy, we simply cannot allow for any journalist to put themselves in harms way.

Do you allow miners to put themselves in harms way to a degree? Firemen? Police officers? Some jobs come with a consensual, albeit limited acceptance of potential harm to the employee. Reporters know the risks and they're determined to value the national coverage of war over their own safety. If you wish to protect them, so be it.

[Neutonica]

A point of inquiry:

Is there not a risk for situations to become even worse when reporters are on the scene? As in, when there's a chance of publicity, is there not going to be more chance of violence for like, wars involving separatist groups, who want to get themselves and their cause known worldwide?

Dr. Isaac Corrigan
Delegate of Neutonica

[Unibot]

We have a problem with 1 and 4.
#1 basically bans propaganda from member nations. Let it be noted that civilian morale is a key element of war, and nonWA nations would not have such loss of strategic morale boosting assets.

1. Prohibiting all member-nation’s government from directly authorizing, encouraging or enforcing the publication of propaganda materials that refer to another nation and its political identity, a political representative of another nation or its military;

You can propagate about your own nation all you want if you wish to retain civilian morale. As for non WA nations, I'd recommend riding the moral high-horse (i.e "Those dirty bigtopians spread lies about us, left, right and center.. their poor, brainwashed troops think they're going to be fighting nine foot boogie monsters!")

Number 4 allows any reporter the access to troop movements, numbers, and weapons, completely destroying military secrecy. I understand this is your point, but denying the enemy knowledge of your troops is half the war.

This is my new draft of 3),

3. Declares that all inhabitants of a member-nation have a right and freedom to record, photograph, discover and disseminate any depictions, enumerations and criticism of genuine effects, consequences and current, retrospective and prospective environmental, social, economic and political conditions of military conflicts that their nation is or has participated in. Including : casualties and fatalities of war, in addition to any misery, pain, devastation, suffering, hunger, abuse, depression, destruction and loss which said conflict may contribute to the local and international community abroad;

I see nothing of troop numbers, and troops numbers. Nor weapons. I do see, however: effects and consequences in addition to statistics of causalities and fatalities.

4. Reaffirms that all reporters retain said right and freedom -- even as an employed reporter -- to publicly record, criticize, photograph, discover and disseminate all of the aforementioned social, political and economic tribulations that may be contributed by any specific or general armed conflict;

This says nothing about specific troop knowledge. This is about what an armed conflict contributes to the world.

[Embolalia]

A point of inquiry:

Is there not a risk for situations to become even worse when reporters are on the scene? As in, when there's a chance of publicity, is there not going to be more chance of violence for like, wars involving separatist groups, who want to get themselves and their cause known worldwide?

Dr. Isaac Corrigan
Delegate of Neutonica

Is there a risk? Perhaps. (Though, I'll note that nothing in this requires reporters on the ground, actually within the conflict. It merely requires that they be allowed to report the effects of said conflict) But then, without it, is there a risk that a nation would disseminate propaganda in order to sustain a war that the people would not agree with, if they knew the truth? Yes. Is there a risk that people will die because of that? Absolutely. Furthermore, it would, under this proposal, reporters would be able to accurately report such an action. And perhaps Neutonicans are different, but just about the last way anyone will convince Embolalians of anything is through violence.

[Aranoff]

While the adjustments are a nice addition, we still feel that allowing reporters to report on the scene of war zones is just going to make any violent engagement that much worse.

Further, we won't even address the issue of propaganda. As we see it, the news corporations are in charge of the media, not the government, and any government run media has a right to show the news in its own light.

A better bill might be to abolish government run media, or at least restrict it to having a board created to validate the news being propagated by government run media for truth. However, we don't think this is a necessity either, as nations have a right to control what goes on in their own nation.

[Embolalia]

While the adjustments are a nice addition, we still feel that allowing reporters to report on the scene of war zones is just going to make any violent engagement that much worse.

Further, we won't even address the issue of propaganda. As we see it, the news corporations are in charge of the media, not the government, and any government run media has a right to show the news in its own light.

A better bill might be to abolish government run media, or at least restrict it to having a board created to validate the news being propagated by government run media for truth. However, we don't think this is a necessity either, as nations have a right to control what goes on in their own nation.

Oh, god, not another useless committee. Although, I don't know that I've seen useless committee *and* NatSov in the same paragraph before.
The point here is that the dissemination of propaganda in war is harmful to the people of the nation, and of other nations. Classic rebuttal there.

[Aranoff]

We don't see how any harm is caused, and until Embolalia can elaborate on specifically how anyone is harmed, we will never support such a bill.

[Unibot]

We don't see how any harm is caused, and until Embolalia can elaborate on specifically how anyone is harmed, we will never support such a bill.

The Glorification of War is extremely harmful to people who are tricked into enlisting in military efforts, and then swiftly die. If people knew the real risks, the real consequences and the real reason of the war, they'd be able to judge for themselves if they truly wanted to enlist for their nation.

[Cerberii]

The Glorification of War is extremely harmful to people who are tricked into enlisting in military efforts, and then swiftly die. If people knew the real risks, the real consequences and the real reason of the war, they'd be able to judge for themselves if they truly wanted to enlist for their nation.

If a nation's culture respects and encourages perceived honour on the battlefield, is this not then impeding on their culture ?

For example, if the Samurai or the Spartans had their culture cease to demonstrate the honour that can be gained on the battlefield, would the culture itself not then be oppressed ?

[Aranoff]

Further, I find it hard to believe than any citizen would go into war this day and age, not knowing what might await them. The very nature of war advises that there is physical harm that may befall you, and alter the course of your life. It is, as another member said earlier, within a nation's interest to keep civilian morale high during war as well.

Yet further, we see journalists reporting on the battlefield as nothing more than a distraction to fighting troops.

[Sidewinder Refuges]

1. Prohibiting all member-nation’s government from directly authorizing, encouraging or enforcing the publication of propaganda materials that refer to another nation and its political identity, a political representative of another nation or its military;

Sidewinder Refuges reserves the right to give moral support to its brave, loyal troops and to educate its citizenry of the EVILS of the enemy out there (who come out of closets at night to make faces at little children... before eating them).

2. Further Prohibiting member-nations from delegating the power, right, duty or obligation to execute said commands to another entity;

Why would you want your own people to fight your wars? If your cause is just, then the righteousness of your cause is imputed to your mercenaries. Don't let your young men die, let the professionals do the fighting for you.
- Boba Fett

3. Declares that all inhabitants of a member-nation have a right and freedom to record, photograph, discover and disseminate any depictions, enumerations, statistics and criticism of genuine effects, consequences and current and retrospective conditions of military conflicts, casualties and fatalities of war, in addition to any misery, pain, devastation, suffering, hunger, abuse, depression, destruction and loss which a military conflict may contribute to the local and international community abroad;

In the interest of morale, this government may have to repress the dissemination of disturbing images. We believe that devastation and misery are unsuitable for public viewing by civilians. Such images may cause excessive and avoidable trauma to the workers at home who feed our war machine.

5. Outlawing any national regulatory implementation by a member-nation that strives to reduce or prevent the criticism of military conflicts they participate in by corrupting, threatening, imprisoning, assaulting, executing or otherwise murdering the contributors of reportage;

This government, having learnt from greater and far more experienced nations in the world, affirms that uncivilized methods like corrupting and butchering are ineffective in encouraging compliance from civilian reporters.

(This delegate knows of a country that has an investment body that buys shares in a company that buys shares in a company that buys shares in major media and telecommunication companies......)

[Manticore Reborn]

First, although we understand outright lying about an enemy is uncouth, we cannot support and outright ban on negative propaganda against another nation.

Also, we'd like to see some sort of protection for governments from liability for those who are injured or killed reporting in war zones.

[Philimbesi]

We would have to see a black and white exception in the case of divulging troop, locations, movements, and intents, before we could think to support this.

Nigel S Youlkin
USP Ambassador to the WA

[Norstal]

The Executive Assembly of Norstal somewhat approves of your draft.

5. Outlawing any national regulatory implementation by a member-nation that strives to reduce or prevent the criticism of military conflicts they participate in by corrupting, threatening, imprisoning, assaulting, executing or otherwise murdering the contributors of reportage;

Although Norstal is a peaceful nation, despite internal strive, we wonder if this clause includes guarding journalists from no-safe zones and other dangerous parts of a battlefield. We recommend you add an exception that if a journalist were to enter such zones, that it is their own fault and not of a belligerent government.

[Darenjo]

Though I'll support it now, we do have a few suggestions:

1. Follow Ms. Ryberg's suggestion and explicitly make sure that military secrets cannot be leaked under the proposal. I didn't care about the WikiLeaks thing on the Afghan War but if it had been a plan to invade Helmand and Kandahar provinces that hadn't been started yet then I would've been concerned.

2. Make sure that there are clauses that explicitly state that if a person reporting on or helping to report on a military situation dies in a situation beyond the reporter's nation's military can control (such as IEDs, air strikes, gunfire during a skirmish/battle/etc., accidents, etc.) then the military is exempt from being sued or having to pay for anything (you should probably also extend that to damage to gear such as cameras or michrophones).

[Intellect and the Arts]

What about propaganda created to encourage the people to fight for freedom from another country? The obvious counter-argument would be "they are in charge of us and could outright destroy us if we piss them off enough so maybe it isn't so smart to start an independence war", and they'd have to refer to the other country, its military, its representatives, and its political identity when explaining why the people should fight for independent status rather than remaining a colony or somesuch. Would this bill then prohibit such materials from being spread by the central government of the colony or whatnot if the controlling nation allowed them to have one?

Feel free to let me know if I'm reading or interpreting incorrectly, but as it stands this is an oversight that I think ought to be addressed.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Though I'll support it now, we do have a few suggestions:

1. Follow Ms. Ryberg's suggestion and explicitly make sure that military secrets cannot be leaked under the proposal. I didn't care about the WikiLeaks thing on the Afghan War but if it had been a plan to invade Helmand and Kandahar provinces that hadn't been started yet then I would've been concerned.

2. Make sure that there are clauses that explicitly state that if a person reporting on or helping to report on a military situation dies in a situation beyond the reporter's nation's military can control (such as IEDs, air strikes, gunfire during a skirmish/battle/etc., accidents, etc.) then the military is exempt from being sued or having to pay for anything (you should probably also extend that to damage to gear such as cameras or michrophones).

Ms. Harper is the ambassador to CR, by the way. It is important to highlight that the civilians are entitled to know the truth in regards to war, whatever the direction they see it. Over the years in NS, through drafts in regards to conscription et al, that support or opposition to wars have made the justification of military secrets a grey area. Generally, there is a consensus for the need to protect military secrets from falling into enemy lines, but opponents want the military to come clean that every war is cruel. Now, some member states may impose a media blackout but then in some cases it would make the overall public opinion worse, unless it was clear that the military was ethical.

[Darenjo]

Though I'll support it now, we do have a few suggestions:

1. Follow Ms. Ryberg's suggestion and explicitly make sure that military secrets cannot be leaked under the proposal. I didn't care about the WikiLeaks thing on the Afghan War but if it had been a plan to invade Helmand and Kandahar provinces that hadn't been started yet then I would've been concerned.

2. Make sure that there are clauses that explicitly state that if a person reporting on or helping to report on a military situation dies in a situation beyond the reporter's nation's military can control (such as IEDs, air strikes, gunfire during a skirmish/battle/etc., accidents, etc.) then the military is exempt from being sued or having to pay for anything (you should probably also extend that to damage to gear such as cameras or michrophones).

Ms. Harper is the ambassador to CR, by the way. It is important to highlight that the civilians are entitled to know the truth in regards to war, whatever the direction they see it. Over the years in NS, through drafts in regards to conscription et al, that support or opposition to wars have made the justification of military secrets a grey area. Generally, there is a consensus for the need to protect military secrets from falling into enemy lines, but opponents want the military to come clean that every war is cruel. Now, some member states may impose a media blackout but then in some cases it would make the overall public opinion worse, unless it was clear that the military was ethical.

Excuse my error Ms. Harper.

Media blackouts are certainly not good. However, i would prefer that classified military plans are allowed to stay out of the public eye, and by extension the enemy in war.

What about my second suggestion?

Oh and Darenjo still supports this as written, we would just prefer that some clarification clauses be added.