[文摘] 深入虎穴:戰地報導的倫理衝突(Steven Sotloff and James Foley Elevated Journalism and Society)

Referral Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/opinion/when-reporting-is-dangerous.html?_r=1

 

在美國駐伊戰地記者接連被IS斬首時,也呼喚起我記憶中,電影《一千次晚安》(A Thousand Times Good Night)中,繽紛而現實地呈現那些關於戰地報導的價值倫理辯證,

如《紐約時報》專欄文章 When Reporting is Dangerous 所述,在這些記者心中,有著對公共正義、傳播真相的堅持--本專欄的結尾也是它的主軸:

We mourn you; we miss you; and, we admire you. And your commitment to the serious over the salacious elevates not only journalism but the entire global society.

是他們堅持了嚴肅而非羶色腥的報導,使社會前進、在黑暗中放光明。 They shone a spotlight in dark nooks of the world to help shape the global agenda.

該新聞下方,《紐約時報》精選的 Ken 評論說:

… much of the time when news programs are on the air, they’re not talking about any of the truly important issues of the day. It’s often difficult to find out what’s going on anywhere else in the world because everyone on the air is preoccupied with a trivial sports scandal or the political squabble du jour.

And why broadcast any news at night on the weekends, when you can fill our eyeballs with orange jump suits and prison bars? It’s so much less expensive to take us to prison than to enlighten us about what’s going on in the world. Do all of the civil wars and disasters and everything else take a break on weekends? Of course not, but the news channels do.

這也是作為新聞人,我在看完《一千次晚安》之後對友人說的:這電影太不現實了,派戰地記者出外採訪多貴、風險多高,特別是「純攝影記者」,即使通訊社大都是駐地性質;《都柏林時報》怎麼可能不計成本在每次國際事件都外派攝影記者(也不符即時效益)?

Nicholas Kristof 這篇文章則現實地解析,在當前回基國族板塊(姑且稱之;伊斯蘭公共神學家 Yasir Qadhi 最新針對911的講話給予此對立架構相當的理論支持)衝突態勢升高下,「兩國相爭,不斬來使」的基本默契已經被破壞殆盡了。

西方記者、人道救援者,都被視作意識型態爪牙而被擄、被殺。 Kristof 提到一次在達弗的驚險狀況:

In Darfur once, my interpreter and I were frantically interviewing villagers as a warlord was approaching to massacre them. Finally, my interpreter said: We’ve just got to go. If they catch us, they’ll hold you for ransom. But they’ll just shoot me.

以往戰爭是留女的、殺男的(理由則不必明說);現在則是留西方記者、殺當地翻譯、嚮導、線人--因為他們的生命被視為無用。因此 Kristof 告訴我們,當地人所參與的反抗,是比外來記者更艱難的。

而在戰地記者當中,攝影師又是比文字記者還更需要犯難的--因為他們職能要求,他們不能躲避衝突現場,而必須鑽入槍林彈雨中。因此 street smart 早就告訴這些文字記者:切莫跟攝影記者搭同一部車。(《一千次晚安》有把這些都拍出來。)

A special shout-out to the photojournalists and video journalists, for they often take the greatest risks. A reporter like myself can keep a distance, while that’s useless for those with cameras. My first rule of covering conflicts is never to accept a ride from photographers, because when they hear gunfire they rush toward it. Just Wednesday, it was confirmed that a Russian photojournalist, Andrei Stenin, had been killed in Ukraine.

只是在歌功頌德的理想主義,終要回歸現實主義的檢視一下。那就是,這些報導究竟實際上幫到什麼、貢獻了什麼?讀者回應有很多理性質疑的聲音。 Neil Grossman 在評論中說:

Like everyone else, I am shocked and hearbroken by these beheadings. But you know what? I don’t understand why journalists take on these risks. I wish they wouldn’t. I don’t see that the benefit of their presence in such ridiculously dangerous places where they are such obvious targets outweighs the value of their lives. Moreover, they seem to be playing into the hands of ISIS and similar organizations, who derive financial and propaganda benefits from kidnapping them.

事實上,就是這些犯險的記者,使得蓋達及其相關組織,自 2008年至今,以擄人勒贖從西方政府得到至少 1.25 億美元的贖款壯大其恐怖勢力。

另一位署名 Southernlens 的讀者也質疑,戰地記者到底有沒有能夠幫助解決衝突?

Who do these stories benefit other than the journalist or photographer? Collectively, what difference does it make that there are hundreds of reporters dashing in and our of danger zones to provide the rest of us with full screen views of the latest atrocities?
This trend in reporting accelerated at the start of the Iraq War when the military cordially « embedded » the media for a ringside seat of the invasion. Not only are civilian men and women risking their lives for the « money shot », the objectivity and interpretative reporting, once the basis of good journalism, doesn’t factor into the frame.
So now we’re at the point where journalists are writing about other journalists who, as they become casualties, have become the money shot.
Time to rethink how we report the news and inform the public?

當伊拉克戰爭爆發時,美軍把裝甲車的副駕駛座讓給攝影記者,讓記者們衝鋒陷陣;難道他們不是在為美軍侵略的英勇、伊拉克的混亂和恐怖組織的殘暴作宣傳?難道他們沒有一時半刻被自己的野心衝動蒙蔽,才不顧安危也要拍下那些無價的新聞畫面,好使自己揚名立萬、邀功領賞?難道他們不是早已從公共利益和正義的超然立場偏斜了,轉而成為恐怖組織利用的工具、仇恨的幫凶、文明世界的累贅?

經典的戰地照片斷章取義範例:光看左邊、光看中間,皆非事件全貌。

在《一千次晚安》當中,女主角的動機也是真實而複雜的。她想要讓世界「大吃一驚」,為此,她無從克制、也不願克制體內嗜血的靈魂,使得愛她、在遙遠守望她的家人幾乎崩潰。

至此,戰地記者的確值得比一般新聞人更多的關注、更多的尊敬;但是追求新聞價值的極致,卻不等於追求神性之價值的極致。因為那些是人性、太過人性的

Read more:

Jacques Danois: 真正的偉大新聞人、多產的報導文學作家。

Peace Journalism: Peace journalism has been developed from research that indicates that often news about conflict has a value bias toward violence. It also includes practical methods for correcting this bias by producing journalism in both the mainstream and alternative media, and working with journalists, media professionals, audiences, and organizations in conflict.

Poster un commentaire 我有話說

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion / Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion / Changer )

Connexion à %s