3 ms·

Attacks on reporters is worthy of cover because it is often done to drive reporters away so that no one will know when things go really ugly.

• ck2 16y ago
  Yes I agree the reporters should try to be on the scene. But they should not immerse themselves in the scene. Now there are thugs coming into the hotels and harassing them, that's news because they are being targeted. But when they walk into the crowd of thugs and get beat up, they are making the news about themselves.
  • shaggyfrog 16y ago
    So reporters should just stay in their hotels? That's where the real story is taking place, not on the streets?
    • ck2 16y ago
      No that's not what I said or meant. Walking into the middle of the crowd of thugs and holding a mic/camera to them and asking why they are being violent, and then getting beaten by them, that's purposely making yourself part of the story and you can't pretend to be surprised. But interviewing someone on the scene who was hurt by the thugs is being a reporter. Injecting yourself in the middle of the fight and knowing you are likely to get beaten is making yourself part of the story and not proper reporting. Which do you think is proper reporting during a hurricane? Interviewing someone whose home was just flattened for what their experience was and now means to them OR setting up a camera and filming yourself jumping out into 100mph winds to get blown away?
      • shaggyfrog 16y ago
        What a stupid analogy. You can't interview a hurricane. But you can interview the people involved in a revolution. Isn't that a reporter's job?
  • igrekel 16y ago
    Reporters were even getting trouble for putting cameras on their hotel balcony. If reporters carry the same fate as the crowd they are in, its not what the news should be (The news should be about what hapenned to the crowd, the reporter's experience is just to help people relate to the event). In this case, they were attacked specificaly, not because they were part of the crowd but because they were reporters.