Alan Hennings’ wife is now appealing to IS to let him go. Two thoughts occur here. Firstly, not only is this a waste of time – trying to reason with the unreasonable always is – but it also gives them a propaganda coup.
Which brings me to the point of people going out into these war zones in the first place. Don’t. Stay at home. Don’t get involved. It is someone else’s war, let them fight it. Invariably we get the images of dying children designed to prick our consciences – usually to give money. I don’t. I remain unmoved. It isn’t my war. I am not killing children. And, frankly, I’m not risking giving money that has a high probability of being siphoned off for more weapons to kill even more children. It isn’t my fight. I won’t get involved.
But there’s something else. Some, like Hennings feel the urge to go out there. Ostensibly for humanitarian reasons. Who knows what the underlying motivation is behind such acts of foolhardiness, but going out there presents risks beyond those to the life of the person going, it provides that propaganda tool. It gives leverage to the enemy. And, so, there is a drawn out media campaign for this person’s release – which isn’t going to happen. And, eventually when his captors feel that they have milked it for all it’s worth, another You Tube video. And Alan Hennings gave them this on a plate all for free. So, don’t go.
Or, if you must – because you are a journalist, for example – do as Mark Steyn was recommending a decade ago. Pack heat. Learn how to use it and shoot to kill. But, more than anything else, don’t be taken alive. That way, you deny them the opportunity to use you as a propaganda weapon.
But the best advice? Don’t go in the first place. Did I say that already?
I’m amazed that anyone would go out there in the first place. Makes you wonder what they were thinking.
The way I see it. Real war zone journalists are self-employed, independent thinking, ideologically impartial; their own eye witness; know finding truth requires observation and investigation of atrocities from both warring sides at the battle front; is his/her own protection in the will to risk life and limb in the pursuit of that truth, and has skilled ability to earn rewards for their risk by presenting their evidence to the right media.
Self employed biased journalists, may also risk their life at the battle front, but lean on security protection from their own warring or neutral side.
Media employed journalists are at a war zone for fame and money; risk nothing except their reputations; only at the battle front as embedded propagandists for their own side and protected by soldiers or private security; earn their rewards by reporting 3rd party civilian eye witness accounts or 2nd party independent journalist’s evidence.
In all cases, I think Steyn’s advice applies. Don’t get taken alive.
Agreed. But I was merely giving personal opinion of war zone journalists’ possible motives for wanting to be there.