Advertisement

None

Reckless Reporting is Inexcusable

“Steve is a fearless journalist,” stated James Hider, a Middle East correspondent for The New York Times, about his colleague at the newspaper, Stephen Farrell. A force of NATO commandos had just freed Farrell on September 9 after the Taliban kidnapped him and his translator in the Taliban-occupied Kunduz province of northern Afghanistan four days earlier. Yet four deaths in exchange for one reckless journalist’s story is an impossible transaction to defend. Journalists must exercise more caution in reporting from war-torn areas like Afghanistan. Their bravery can quickly turn into a vainglorious fixation on getting a story when others’ lives are also endangered.

Farrell had been investigating a recent German-ordered air strike targeting two hijacked fuel tankers in Kunduz that killed 70 people, a number of them civilians. The region, however, was volatile and controlled by the Taliban. Despite police warnings, Farrell entered Kunduz without a military escort, armed with nothing more deadly than the language abilities of his translator. In the mission to save Farrell, a dual British-Irish citizen, four people were killed: a British commando in the NATO force, an Afghani man and woman—both civilians—and Farrell’s own translator, Sultan Munadi.

When did reporters decide that they are CIA operatives? Certainly, undercover and investigative journalism has a long history, but generally such people have assumed all risks for themselves and themselves alone. Farrell, by shunning a military escort, made himself into a liability for NATO as well as for The New York Times, which did not report on the situation for fear of Taliban reprisal against its hostages. The Allied forces became responsible for rescuing Farrell from a situation into which he should have never put himself, much less put the life of his co-worker Munadi, a married man with two children who had worked as a translator for U.S. newspapers for many years. Farrell’s behavior could be excused if he only endangered himself in his quest to report on the air strike, but the situation in Kunduz made that impossible—a reality Farrell should have appreciated before basically throwing himself into the Taliban’s waiting arms. Reporters should write to expose others to the truth, not foolishly expose others to danger.

Steve Farrell lamentably did not have the necessary “fear,” or the common sense, to recognize the dangerous situation in which he placed himself and Munadi. Farrell and Munadi’s kidnapping was the second kidnapping of a New York Times reporter in one year. Such kidnappings usually occur in outlying provinces such as Kunduz (although kidnappings in and around Kabul do occur). Also, the Taliban often kidnap for ideological reasons, valuing Western journalists, whereas criminals might target wealthy businessmen. The situation in Afghanistan, and increasingly in the north, is becoming extremely unstable. In August, the number of coalition casualties had doubled compared to the number of casualties just two months earlier, and already 362 soldiers have died this year compared to a total of 294 in 2008. The Taliban is also drawing strength from accusations of fraud in the recent elections to de-legitimize Hamid Karzai’s government. Reporters need to respect this precarious situation, and they must act with appropriate prudence.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown hailed the mission as an example of “breathtaking heroism.” The NATO forces did act bravely in carrying out their orders, but it was later revealed that NATO forces might have mistakenly killed Munadi when he rushed out of the compound yelling “Journalist! Journalist!” The mission seems to be more of an example of breathtaking peril, about as precise as the United States’s long-term plan of how to stabilize Afghanistan—which is to say, not precise at all. Four people died, two of whom were not even directly involved in the situation. Such casualties can hardly justify a bloody rescue mission as “heroic.”

“We’re overjoyed that Steve is free, but deeply saddened that his freedom came at such a cost,” said Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times. Such a statement conveniently removes any agency and responsibility on Farrell’s part. Casualties are to be expected in a war, but reporters have no business adding to the death toll. Reporters do have a responsibility to get the truth, but no quote or picture can justify four unrighteous deaths. Keller said that The New York Times would be undergoing a security review following the incident to reevaluate the great amount of leeway given to reporters in the field. The Taliban are obviously the ultimate agents in the kidnappings, but a reporter knowingly endangering himself and others by extension is almost as culpable.

The Taliban are not going to behave cordially toward the West anytime soon, and Western journalists need to appreciate the dangerous power that the Taliban has in Afghanistan, not rashly disregard it by going to hazardous areas without protection. Fearless is the last thing a reporter should be in such a situation.


Anna E. Boch ’11, a Crimson editorial writer, is a Near Eastern languages and civilizations concentrator in Winthrop House.
Advertisement
Advertisement