Pros And Cons Of Journalist Carrying Weapons

Grenita Allen-Jones
Prof. Hobbs
English-90-0168
May 22, 2011 Should Journalist be Allowed to Carry Weapons?

Journalist face many risk while covering stories in battle zones. This has imposed the idea of journalist carrying weapons for protection against the attacks they face. In the article Rash Report: Press Under Fire and not just War Zones, it was reported, “852 journalist have been killed because of their job, defined “motive confirmed” plus 320 deaths as a “motive uncomfirmed” (Rash). Many people feel that journalist should be able to conceal a weapon on a risky job, others oppose this for a variety of reasons. Although journalist need protection in dangerous working conditions, they shouldn’t be allowed
In the article, 4 Times Journalist Held Captive in Libya Faced Days of Brutality, the journalist informed the public of the treatment and brutality they experienced while being imprisoned by Libyian captors. They reported being tied up by their hands and feet; some were hit, punched, and even headbutted with guns. They described the beatings as “always fiercest in the first few minutes.” The captors also put journalist in danger while battling their own enemies. Although, they said their captors provided them with some food and water, the treatment they recieved was unjust. These journalist who are working and not involved in the events that take place in these dangerous enviroments, are constantly targeted and suffering harsh consequences. In the article, “Why We Need Women In War Zones?”, reporter Kim Barker discusses the different situations women, including herself, have faced being on duty journalist in foreign countries. In Pakistan, as she was taking notes for a story in a crowd, men beganto grope at her. She responded by shouting at them; when their advances continued, she began punching at them until she made a scene, and was invited into the car of the Chief of Justice. Barker also reported knowing female
Some people oppose this idea just as well as the guns, for some of the same reasons. People fear the presence of an armed guard will present the journalist as a target. The journalist will appear as apart of the war, rather than an innocent bystander. That the citizens in that country will be afraid to talk to the reporters because of the armed guards, and their job won’t get done. They also feel like the armed guards may kill innocent civilians. Now this may have some truth, except the guards killin gthe innocent civilians. The main point is too many journalist are dying in other countries, and they have nothing to do with the violent events that take place. The presence of an armed guard would make it harder for journalist to be beatin or sexually assualted. It would be harder for foreign soldiers to kidnap journalist or to kill journalist, because they would have protection. In the article, Rash Report: Press under fire, and not just in war zones, it said, “52 journalist murdered in Russia, 27 in India, 24 in Mexico, and an astonishing 71 in the Philippines (Rash).” If protection were required for journalist when covering risky stories, the statistics wouldn’t be as high. Unlike journalist armed guards are trained and can provided sufficient protection against captors and mobs. Journalist are no longer seen as neutral,