[PASSED] Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism

[Dratonis]

Generally I agree with this proposal. The only problem I have is that a conflict zone doesn't necessarily have to be between nations, and doesn't necessarily have to have military grade equipment.

1. I'm concerned that reporters reporting on civil conflicts wont receive protection under this proposal

2. I'm concerned that reporters may be attacked if they are reporting on non military conflict

3. I'm concerned about the lack of a definition of military grade equipment(although this isn't as important of a concern)

Other than these things, I find no fault with this resolution.

[Refuge Isle]

1. I'm concerned that reporters reporting on civil conflicts wont receive protection under this proposal

2. I'm concerned that reporters may be attacked if they are reporting on non military conflict

The resolution is specifically written to be mindful of this concern. The topic is oriented around "conflict journalists" instead of "war correspondents" for this reason. Like it says in the OP, you can have a conflict journalist for any conflict in which military grade equipment is deployed. For protests that we've seen in recent years where heavily beefed up personnel carriers in tank-like vehicles roll down the road distributing cans of tear gas to suppress protesters, this is civil conflict that can have conflict journalist. Civil wars also fit this description.

[Ardiveds]

"While we are not keen on journalists running around with military grade weapons in the name of defense, we do think atleast a sidearm is necessary, especially when non-members and non-state actors are involved. Unfortunately, we shall have to vote against this."

[South Boston Irishmen]

"While we are not keen on journalists running around with military grade weapons in the name of defense, we do think atleast a sidearm is necessary, especially when non-members and non-state actors are involved. Unfortunately, we shall have to vote against this."

I believe you would find that many journalists would say that they are non-combatants, and therefore would refuse to carry a weapon in a combat zone, even a sidearm.

[Greater Cesnica]

OOC: A scenario I'm thinking of where Article 1(b) would function in practice to stifle reporting for non-propaganda purposes:

Say Canada enters a war with the Philippines. Journalists from the CBC, Canada's public broadcasting entity which receives most of its funding from the federal government but generally does not serve as a mouthpiece for the Canadian government, would not be permitted to report from within a conflict zone where Canadian forces are engaged in combat as the Philippines could claim that these journalists do not operate independently of Canada, a belligerent faction.

And, more critically, journalists from the CTV, the largest privately-owned media company in Canada, would also not be permitted to cover the conflict in that same conflict zone, due to the same condition from Article 1(b) cited by the Philippines government that precludes CBC journalists from reporting from within the conflict zone.

This is a problem of grey areas, ambiguity, and just overall micromanagement that could easily be exploited by one warring faction or another to stifle reporting. I say it's better to allow propagandists to operate within the conflict zone that are in actuality working with the armed forces and government of one or belligerent faction to push a particular narrative or get something done, rather than deny journalists protections based on affiliation with one entity or another.

[Refuge Isle]

OOC: A scenario I'm thinking of where Article 1(b) would function in practice to stifle reporting for non-propaganda purposes:

Say Canada enters a war with the Philippines. Journalists from the CBC, Canada's public broadcasting entity which receives most of its funding from the federal government but generally does not serve as a mouthpiece for the Canadian government, would not be permitted to report from within a conflict zone where Canadian forces are engaged in combat as the Philippines could claim that these journalists do not operate independently of Canada, a belligerent faction.

And, more critically, journalists from the CTV, the largest privately-owned media company in Canada, would also not be permitted to cover the conflict in that same conflict zone, due to the same condition from Article 1(b) cited by the Philippines government that precludes CBC journalists from reporting from within the conflict zone.

This is a problem of grey areas, ambiguity, and just overall micromanagement that could easily be exploited by one warring faction or another to stifle reporting. I say it's better to allow propagandists to operate within the conflict zone that are in actuality working with the armed forces and government of one or belligerent faction to push a particular narrative or get something done, rather than deny journalists protections based on affiliation with one entity or another.

In real life, you have two classifications of journalists. War correspondents who are often embedded with a nation's military to bring information back, largely for propaganda purposes, and independent journalists who are there on their own means, or the means of their news organisation. If the CBC is sent by the military for the purposes of bringing back propaganda for the trash war, then those journalists aren't covered by the protection of this resolution, as they are adequately protected by the belligerent faction and have ample means to move about the battle field on their own.

This resolution does not consider journalists that are protected by a military, although the door is open to future legislation on the subject. I am concerned with journalists who do not have such an industrial array of permissions and legal protections.

[Luna Free State]

I fail to see how this, "A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts," is applicable.

Voting against.

[Greater Cesnica]

OOC: A scenario I'm thinking of where Article 1(b) would function in practice to stifle reporting for non-propaganda purposes:

Say Canada enters a war with the Philippines. Journalists from the CBC, Canada's public broadcasting entity which receives most of its funding from the federal government but generally does not serve as a mouthpiece for the Canadian government, would not be permitted to report from within a conflict zone where Canadian forces are engaged in combat as the Philippines could claim that these journalists do not operate independently of Canada, a belligerent faction.

And, more critically, journalists from the CTV, the largest privately-owned media company in Canada, would also not be permitted to cover the conflict in that same conflict zone, due to the same condition from Article 1(b) cited by the Philippines government that precludes CBC journalists from reporting from within the conflict zone.

This is a problem of grey areas, ambiguity, and just overall micromanagement that could easily be exploited by one warring faction or another to stifle reporting. I say it's better to allow propagandists to operate within the conflict zone that are in actuality working with the armed forces and government of one or belligerent faction to push a particular narrative or get something done, rather than deny journalists protections based on affiliation with one entity or another.

In real life, you have two classifications of journalists. War correspondents who are often embedded with a nation's military to bring information back, largely for propaganda purposes, and independent journalists who are there on their own means, or the means of their news organisation. If the CBC is sent by the military for the purposes of bringing back propaganda for the trash war, then those journalists aren't covered by the protection of this resolution, as they are adequately protected by the belligerent faction and have ample means to move about the battle field on their own.

This resolution does not consider journalists that are protected by a military, although the door is open to future legislation on the subject. I am concerned with journalists who do not have such an industrial array of permissions and legal protections.

OOC: Yep, your intent with that provision seems solid. I get what you were going at. The problem is that I don't feel it's spelled out quite clearly enough. If you had defined what exactly "operating independent of any belligerent faction" entails and what would be required for journalists to fall afoul of that, then there would be no problem on that front. Unfortunately, such elaboration is not provided, which is where during our (hopefully) hypothetical future trash war the Phillippines could throw a hissy fit about Canadian media entities reporting from a conflict zone, and possibly target them.

Also on another note, I would like to sincerely apologize for not coming to you with my concerns before this was submitted. I have been heavily busy IRL up until about a week ago, which incidentally coincided with around the time this was being submitted and pushed through the queue.

[Refuge Isle]

I fail to see how this, "A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts," is applicable.

Voting against.

The area of effect is "Free Press". There is no other "Free Press" category.

Also on another note, I would like to sincerely apologize for not coming to you with my concerns before this was submitted. I have been heavily busy IRL up until about a week ago, which incidentally coincided with around the time this was being submitted and pushed through the queue.

It's alright, commentary was conspicuously absent for the two months this was in drafting, and the political winds seem to be shifting a certain direction towards nitpicking at the moment and repealing at the moment. This resolution would have been better submitted in August or September. Mea culpa.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Obraztsova:Eh, I see little to no reason not to support this resolution, my superiors agree. Full support and voted “for..

[Greater Cesnica]

I fail to see how this, "A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts," is applicable.

Voting against.

OOC: If GenSec says the category fits, it fits.

[Greater Cesnica]

It's alright, commentary was conspicuously absent for the two months this was in drafting, and the political winds seem to be shifting a certain direction towards nitpicking at the moment and repealing at the moment.

Still can't exactly pin-point why that's been happening. Now it has affected me.

[Ardiveds]

"While we are not keen on journalists running around with military grade weapons in the name of defense, we do think atleast a sidearm is necessary, especially when non-members and non-state actors are involved. Unfortunately, we shall have to vote against this."

I believe you would find that many journalists would say that they are non-combatants, and therefore would refuse to carry a weapon in a combat zone, even a sidearm.

"We weren't talking about forcing them to carry a weapon but simply giving them the option. If they willingly go unarmed into a warzone where the enemy (who may or may not be bound by WA laws) can overrun the front at any time and shoot them on sight, it's their funeral."

[Illu-chi]

I voted against since of this,"disallowing conflict journalists access to a conflict zone and freedom of movement within it." , but this makes it illegal for member nations to block journalists in certain areas because of safety reasons. Also a conflict journalist should at least be allowed to have a semi-automatic pistol, but not a ar pistol in my opinion. Conflict journalists should also wear a bright colored armband to signify they are conflict journalists as well.

[South Boston Irishmen]

I understand you aren't trying to force a journalist to have a weapon, I'm saying that if they have the option, they will refuse. To carry a weapon into a combat zone goes against every bit of journalistic integrity that they have. You are either a journalist, which means a non-combatant, or you aren't. You can't be both, and you can't go into a warzone armed and then claim to be neutral.

[Greater Cesnica]

I understand you aren't trying to force a journalist to have a weapon, I'm saying that if they have the option, they will refuse. To carry a weapon into a combat zone goes against every bit of journalistic integrity that they have. You are either a journalist, which means a non-combatant, or you aren't. You can't be both, and you can't go into a warzone armed and then claim to be neutral.

OOC: And yet some do.

https://go.gale.com/ps/anonymous?id=GAL ... =AONE&sw=w

https://www.newstatesman.com/world-affa ... e-warzones

https://www.cjr.org/first_person/gun_ca ... nalist.php

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB107266320854789600

https://ajrarchive.org/Article.asp?id=3969

[Illu-chi]

I understand you aren't trying to force a journalist to have a weapon, I'm saying that if they have the option, they will refuse. To carry a weapon into a combat zone goes against every bit of journalistic integrity that they have. You are either a journalist, which means a non-combatant, or you aren't. You can't be both, and you can't go into a warzone armed and then claim to be neutral.

Your in a warzone where everyone who is going to be around you will have some sort of deadly weapon and your saying a journalist won't want to have a pistol!?

[Greater Cesnica]

I understand you aren't trying to force a journalist to have a weapon, I'm saying that if they have the option, they will refuse. To carry a weapon into a combat zone goes against every bit of journalistic integrity that they have. You are either a journalist, which means a non-combatant, or you aren't. You can't be both, and you can't go into a warzone armed and then claim to be neutral.

Your in a warzone where everyone who is going to be around you will have some sort of deadly weapon and your saying a journalist won't want to have a pistol!?

OOC: The primary reason why many journalists will refuse to carry a firearm or other deadly weapon is that doing so may render journalists a legitimate target in the eyes of warring factions. Essentially, a journalist being disarmed would ideally provide less of an incentive to attack them. However, this unspoken code of not regarding journalists as threats or targets has been broken in recent years, particularly by non-state actors and by nations with rather poor attitudes towards human dignity overall. As such, I do believe that in certain circumstances it may be prudent for a journalist to be armed, and since this resolution prevents that it is one point of contention I have with it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: The primary reason why many journalists will refuse to carry a firearm or other deadly weapon is that doing so may render journalists a legitimate target in the eyes of warring factions. Essentially, a journalist being disarmed would ideally provide less of an incentive to attack them. However, this unspoken code of not regarding journalists as threats or targets has been broken in recent years, particularly by non-state actors and by nations with rather poor attitudes towards human dignity overall. As such, I do believe that in certain circumstances it may be prudent for a journalist to be armed, and since this resolution prevents that it is one point of contention I have with it.

I agree that it perhaps might be prudent for a journalist to carry a personal defence weapon in situations where he or she might be kidnapped, killed, or held for ransom. Risks of such tactics necessarily are self-evidently higher in conditions where belligerents, lawful or unlawful, fail to uphold such standards.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: The primary reason why many journalists will refuse to carry a firearm or other deadly weapon is that doing so may render journalists a legitimate target in the eyes of warring factions. Essentially, a journalist being disarmed would ideally provide less of an incentive to attack them. However, this unspoken code of not regarding journalists as threats or targets has been broken in recent years, particularly by non-state actors and by nations with rather poor attitudes towards human dignity overall. As such, I do believe that in certain circumstances it may be prudent for a journalist to be armed, and since this resolution prevents that it is one point of contention I have with it.

OOC: I understand that carrying around a gun will probably make them look like a target but a concealed sidearm will surely not attract much attention while still being somewhat effective if things get dangerous. And again, I'm talking about choice here. If 99% of them aren't willing to carry a gun, let the 1% protect themselves.

[Scalizagasti]

The United Regions Alliance recommends that nations vote for this resolution.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1549459

[Van Couvere]

In my opinion, journalists that are in conflict zones should not engage in combat since they still classified as citizens of one's country/nation/society. If they are to be in conflict areas, they SHOULD be accompanied by military or national escort. At least 3-5 armed guards should remain with the journalist and crew. Beside's my opinion I disagree with this since it is putting our journalists at risk of even more dangers. The opposing forces may outnumber the journalists and its crew.

Van Couvere

[Greater Cesnica]

OOC: The primary reason why many journalists will refuse to carry a firearm or other deadly weapon is that doing so may render journalists a legitimate target in the eyes of warring factions. Essentially, a journalist being disarmed would ideally provide less of an incentive to attack them. However, this unspoken code of not regarding journalists as threats or targets has been broken in recent years, particularly by non-state actors and by nations with rather poor attitudes towards human dignity overall. As such, I do believe that in certain circumstances it may be prudent for a journalist to be armed, and since this resolution prevents that it is one point of contention I have with it.

OOC: I understand that carrying around a gun will probably make them look like a target but a concealed sidearm will surely not attract much attention while still being somewhat effective if things get dangerous. And again, I'm talking about choice here. If 99% of them aren't willing to carry a gun, let the 1% protect themselves.

OOC: Yep, I agree.

[Greater Cesnica]

In my opinion, journalists that are in conflict zones should not engage in combat since they still classified as citizens of one's country/nation/society. If they are to be in conflict areas, they SHOULD be accompanied by military or national escort. At least 3-5 armed guards should remain with the journalist and crew. Beside's my opinion I disagree with this since it is putting our journalists at risk of even more dangers. The opposing forces may outnumber the journalists and its crew.

Van Couvere

"Ambassador, a military or "national" escort is about the worst thing a conflict journalist could do to get themselves killed or otherwise targeted."

[Great Algerstonia]

"If they're in the battlefield, they have all rights to die in the field. We vote AGAINST on this proposal, my Brigade will shoot whoever and whatever it wants."

~Admiral-Ambassador Alec Ainsworth.