Four New York Times journalists were released by the Libyan government Monday after a week in captivity. One of the reporters, Pulitzer Prize winner Anthony Shadid, worked under Phil Bennett, a Duke professor who, at the time, was The Washington Post’s assistant managing editor for foreign news. Bennett was later promoted to managing editor of the paper and is now the Eugene C. Patterson Professor of the Practice of Journalism and Public Policy at Duke. He is also a member of the Duke Student Publishing Company’s Board of Directors, which publishes The Chronicle. Staff writer Michael Shammas asked Bennett over email about the challenges of keeping reporters safe in war zones.
The Chronicle: As a journalist, have you ever run into trouble abroad? Have your co-workers?
Phil Bennett:I started my career covering wars for The Boston Globe in the 1980s in Central America. Being in the middle of a conflict changes your life in ways that can take a long time to understand. Several close colleagues have been killed over the years. Literally dozens, far braver than I ever was, put their lives on the line routinely in the service of an important story. As an editor, I can say that it can be as anxiety-provoking to send somebody into harm’s way as it is to work there yourself. Either way, it’s important to keep in mind that as a journalist on the front lines you are only sharing the risks experienced by the thousands, or more, people who live there. You are not the story. They are.
TC: How dangerous is it for journalists to be in Libya at this time?
PB: In any crisis or conflict, whether in Libya or Japan or Afghanistan, it’s critical that journalists are present to witness events, talk directly to participants or other witnesses and carry those words and images and observations to the outside world. There’s no substitute for first-hand experience, especially in an armed conflict, where truth is, if not the first casualty, an early and easy target for all sides. The job of journalists is not only to record what is happening, but to provide context and the elements to understand events. Being there doesn’t mean that journalists will get everything right. But it improves the odds. As we’ve seen, this can carry a high price for the journalists. Libya is especially dangerous today—the Committee to Protect Journalists reports that 13 journalists are missing or in custody, and others have been killed. But it is by no means the only place where journalists are at risk.
TC:One of the missing reporters was Anthony Shadid, who you worked with at The Washington Post. Have you heard anything about his condition?
PB: Anthony and I worked together closely at The Washington Post. I hired him early 2003, just before the United States invasion of Iraq. He was one of the few journalists who remained in Baghdad at the start of the war and won a Pulitzer Prize for this work, the first of his two Pulitzers. We’ve remained very good friends. I’m overjoyed that he was released and appears to be in good health. He’s a journalist of monumental courage and talent; both are part of his success. He takes risks mindful that he is doing something very important: bearing witness, getting the fact right, telling the stories of people who otherwise would not have their voices heard.
TC: What steps can journalists reporting from conflict zones take to ensure that they are safe?
PB: In those cases, experience counts, and if you don’t have any it’s good to stick with someone who does. Knowing the language can be critical. Thinking ahead, and clearly. Figuring out whom to trust. Knowing what the story is and doing just enough to get it. Having a Plan B. The risks can also vary depending on what kind of journalist you are. Writers can often hang back and reconstruct events after they’ve happened. If you’re taking photographs or making video, you have to be there when the action occurs, and often the closer the better. This takes incredible skills and bravery. Three of the four captured Times journalists were shooting images—and each has a very long track record in working under fire.
TC: What motivations do governments have to capture journalists?
PB: In the case of the New York Times journalists, it looks as though they were taken at a roadblock during fighting between government forces and the opposition. In those situations, it’s often less a decision by the government to hold journalists than the independent actions by soldiers during a chaotic situation. That makes it extremely dangerous; from published accounts, it looks as though the Times journalists faced an immediate threat of execution. They were bound, punched and abused. Later, when higher ranking Libyan officials became involved, they were flown to Tripoli and treated better. But there were fears then that they would be used as pawns in negotiations between the government and the United States. Thankfully it did not play out that way.
TC: Are there any international conventions stipulating how journalists are treated in war zones?
PB: The most important protections afforded journalists in war zones are those that apply to all non-combatants, protections provided in the Geneva Conventions. However, we are living in a period when civilians are frequently the targets of armed groups or “collateral damage” of military operations. Attacks on civilians that once produced outrage now seem commonplace. Along with respect for civilian lives, I think, the respect for the role of journalists in war zones has eroded greatly. I think it has become much more dangerous to be a journalist working in a conflict area—whether you are a foreign correspondent or a local reporter. And that can affect the quality and depth of information that gets out to the public, whether the story is like Libya, the focus of attention or an ignored crisis where silence allows violence or suffering to persist.
This article has been modified to reflect that the interview was conducted over email.Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.