Is it right to have reporters out on the front lines of war?

  • Yes. Reporters generally take those assignments by choice.

    If the argument were should reporters be required to be on the front lines, my answer would be no. However, most reporters choose to be right in the middle of an event or story in order to provide others with important information. Why deny someone a choice in their profession?

  • I think we need to get firsthand knowledge of what is going on with any war we are spending tax dollars on, so I support using reporters on the front lines to get the story and the truth to the public at large.

    I think that we do not get all the information from the government that is needed to support any war, and the only way we get any information is that of reporters that are committed to bring the story to the people. I think we have a right to know everything that is going on with the war and that the public should have a right to say how much we are involved in any war.

    Posted by: HangingDorsey39
  • If a reporter is on the front lines of their own free will, then yes, it is quite acceptable.

    News needs to be reported, and many who do so are very enthusiastic and dedicated about it. If it is their choice to cover the front lines of a
    war or conflict, then we should consider it just part of their job.

    Posted by: MarsBIue
  • I support having journalists on the front lines, because the American people need to know what our military is doing

    First off, the war will need documentation. What better way to start, than to have the media catch it, preventing a full out government spin on the war? Secondly, our descendants will need to know about the mistakes of the past, such as the wars in the Middle East. Finally, the American people have the right to know what's going on in the war supported by their tax dollars.

    Posted by: PuzzledCharles70
  • If reporters are willing to go than it should be allowed.

    If a reporter is willing to report from the front lines of war than it should definitely be encouraged. Allowing the population to see news that comes from the heart of the conflict gives a real perspective. A reporter should never be forced to report from the front line if she/he chooses not to, but if one is willing than that should be her/his choice.

    Posted by: TedieDelight
  • War correspondents' work is risky but crucial for keeping the public informed about the direction and costs of particular wars.

    Because governments frequently mislead the public and the international community about the existence, purpose, details, and direction of armed conflicts in which they engage or for which they provide support, it is crucial to have media on the front lines conveying to the public the actual dynamics of the war as it is playing out on the ground. To be sure, a ground-eye view is not the only important one; diplomatic, strategic, and moral considerations also ought to inform policy decisions about military engagements, but the perspective from the front lines is crucial to democratic deliberation about this crucial topic - one that is so easily clouded by euphemism, emotion, and propaganda.

    Posted by: M4I4cFeIine
  • While they shouldn't be required to do it, they should definitely be allowed, because they are our eyes and ears.

    Reporters are the eyes and ears of the common people. When there is a war going on, what better way do we have to know what is really going on then to have our eyes and ears on the front line? There is danger involved of course, so reporters should only go by choice. But they should always be allowed to go.

    Posted by: MariaR
  • Reporters are never sent to the front lines against their will, instead it is their own choice.

    If a reporter wants to report from the front lines, it's their prerogative, and all we can and should do is commend their bravery and thank them for a well-reported story. A reporter cannot be forced to risk their life on the front lines, because they are not soldiers. It is always their own choice, and they should not be stopped.

    Posted by: 4uncLife
  • Yes, because reporters have their own right to be on the front lines of a war.

    A free and independent press is a cornerstone of democracy. It is vital that reporters be on the front lines of a war or violent conflict, so as to insure the American public has a clear and concise view of the actions taken by their government, and actions taken in their name.

    Posted by: N4PFerIi
  • Reporters have no business on the frontline.

    I get that people want the truth about what is happening in the war but putting a liability on the frontline is not the answer. Doing that will put the service member, reporter, and everyone around them in jeopardy of being injured, possibly even killed. If they wanted to be on the front line they should have joined the military. People need to just relax and realize the reason things things have been withheld from you is for your own protection.

  • I oppose having reporters on the front lines in war situations, because it puts the lives of the reporters and the soldiers at risk.

    I believe reporters do not need to be out on the front lines in wars, because soldiers will be put at unnecessary risk trying to protect the reporters. Soldiers will feel obligated to protect a civilian, such as a reporter who feels the need to get a good story or great photo, at the risk of their own lives and those around them. The reporters should stay back at the base camps and wait for word to come back and then report from the relative safety of that location.

    Posted by: BouncyWalter37
  • Reporters should be banned from war altogether to start with.

    War is an ugly act and should not be a place for the media. Our soldiers have to protect themselves, and having reporters on the field of battle is an unnecessary distraction to them. They should not have a place on the battlefield. My opinion is that they serve no purpose on the battlefield.

    Posted by: SlipArnal
  • It is not right for reporters to be on the front lines of war because they pose a threat to our troops.

    It is not right for reporters to be on the front lines of war because they pose a threat to our troops. A reporter could easily transmit information on troop strength or troop movements to the enemy so that the enemy could plan an ambush. Major Nidal Hassan is a fair example of an embedded enemy.

    Posted by: jackprague94
  • No, front line reporters put both themselves and the soldiers around them at risk.

    War is a dangerous place and no soldier should have to divide their attention to look after some civilian reporter. Worse yet is the security leak aspect; anything the reporter records, writes down and eventually sends back to their home office is less secure than going through proper military channels. This makes front line reports a huge information risk to those around them.

    Posted by: H_Baird

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.