I attended the David Finkel conference where he spoke about the last six years of his life as an embedded reporter, living with the American troops in Baghdad, and documenting his experience. One issue that he brought he up in the conference was the fact that the soldiers didn’t trust him and thought he had another agenda. So he needed to remain objective while gathering his story. The second issue is that he needed to make tough decisions as a journalist, that may have negatively impacted the subject he was writing about.
“Who is my obligation to? “It is to the readers, not the subject you’re writing about.” Finkel said.
The first issue was about how he needed to remain objective in his time living in Baghdad. Living in close quarters with soldiers a journalist is soon going to be writing about makes that difficult for any journalist to do. Objective journalism is to represent all the possible facts of a situation as well as a journalist can. (Rusciano). Even if the facts don’t necessarily reflect the war in a good light. The American troops could end up being immoral, or they weren’t accomplishing much, and he would have still had to report on that. A study talks about how bases are places that are constantly threatened, and the men live in fear. However, when many journalists report on such they transform it in a way to glorify the war to the American public, and make it seem that the war was worthwhile. (Bartley). As a journalist you should always be objective, and that can sometimes be hard to do when put in difficult situations like this. Situations where Finkel promised a head of time his motive for reporting on the soldier’s was ethical, and he wasn’t trying to make the soldiers seem immoral or look bad. Still, he faced skepticism about his motives, and was thought to have another agenda. Conflict develops between journalists and the government when it comes to reporting on war because the government only wants the journalists to report on ‘what is right’ to support the troops and the war effort. (Rusciano). This conflicts with a journalist’s need to be objective and truth-telling. They shouldn’t only be reporting what the government deems right to report. If there is something amiss than it should be told to the public; even if it doesn’t support the war effort. That’s why journalism and freedom of the press is separate from government. It’s a journalist’s job to report things the government may not necessarily want the people to know.
The second issue is the obligation he had to include things in his story; things that weren’t easy to put in. He talked about how a bomb went through a 500 pound door and hit a soldier. The soldier just found out his wife had a baby beforehand and he was just barely alive in the aftermath. The CPR the performed on him was so forceful that pieces of him kept falling off his body, and a toe hit Finkel’s boot. The soldier dies a little afterwards and in Finkel’s book he put a line in that was difficult to write, but captured the scene perfectly.
“That’s a toe.” Finkel said.
That was the reaction when the piece of the soldier’s body hit him. He was conscious of how the soldier’s family would take how he wrote the soldier’s death. That is why it was a tough decision to make. In another study the argument is that newsrooms should recognize that journalists’ actions can add to the trauma of being a casualty of war; for the victim and their families. (Bechtel). A journalist’s actions and what they choose to include when reporting will definitely have an impact on the subject they’re reporting on; especially when it comes to reporting on war. Sometimes though you have to look at what the public needs to know vs. thinking about the subject or their family’s feelings. A journalist should try to minimize hurt caused by their writing, but they should also try to convey the truth to their readers as much as trouble. Doing so requires some analyzing about whether what you’re putting in should be written or not. How is it going to affect the subject? Does the truth outweigh the cons that could be a consequence of reporting the truth. Sometimes these decisions aren’t so easy in journalism.
I believe Finkel made ethical and well-thought out decisions when it came to documenting this, and writing his book on it. He remained objective and reported everything he felt should be known to the public. He made tough decisions that impacted families, but I feel that what he wrote was needed. The public should grasp a complete understanding of the full situation, and the life the soldiers faced everyday in Baghdad. What he reported was necessary for the public to know to understand the situation. Though he made good decisions not very journalist unfortunately does. Not all journalists can remain objective, or are able to make tough decisions when it comes to reporting on things like war. Finkel did it marvelously though, and the family of the soldier that was killed by the bomb even thanked him for how he wrote the soldier’s death. Finkel is an example of what any journalist who hopes to go overseas and report on war or other political issues needs to be.
Bartley, Aryn. (2008). The Hateful Self: Substitution and the Ethics of Representing War. MFS Modern Fiction Studies 54.1 50-71. Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/journals/modern_fiction_studies/v054/54.1bartley.html
Bechtel, A. (2007). Covering violence: A guide to ethical reporting about victims and trauma. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 84(4), 849-850. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/216941127?accountid=13158
Rusciano, F. (2010). The ‘right to know vs. knowing what’s right’: tabloid ethics and news reporting in the Iraq War. Media, War & Conflict, 3(3), 245-260. doi:10.1177/1750635210377032