 |
War reporter Marie Colvin in Homs.
Photo: Democratic Underground. |
Homs, Syria is a long way from Oxford, England.
It's on another continent, the people speak another language, have different customs than mine. They are in the midst of a bloody civil war. But the same sun rises, and then there are the children...
If you are so inclined you can look at S.O.S footage on youtube of children with shrapnel wounds. This is much harsher than any imagery we have had from any previous conflict.
There is no picture editor involved. The internet has changed the way we see war.
So do we need journalists to go in there and risk their lives? Did Times correspondent Marie Colvin need to die last week? Does the sight of French journalist
Edith Bouvier lying on a bed in a room with no electricity tell us more than the sight of a Syrian child lying dead? Can't local people tell the story?
To me the answer is obvious.
Yes, we need the war reporters. They perform a task for all of us:
bearing witness. That doesn't mean we have to listen to the reports, but it's important in the grand scheme of things that there are witnesses to history, people who are not involved in the conflict, who watch and listen and
try to tell the truth. It may not even be important now but for posterity.
There is nothing like an eye witness who is also an outsider. Who can forget Ed Murrow's broadcasts from bombed London, once you've heard them of course? Local people and combatants have their story to tell, but a correspondent sees the world
with fresh eyes.
But
what kind of person risks their life repeatedly like that? There must be a thrill of adrenalin, a love of risk, an ideal of truth-telling, an ability to tell a story – and above all courage.