There's a skirmish going on in the blogosphere concerning the recent Pulitzer Prize for breaking news photography awarded to The Associated Press for images depicting the war in Iraq. In question is the use of Iraqi freelancers by The Associated Press who have access to situations Western photojournalists may not have.
Specifically in question is an image showing the street-style execution of an Iraqi election worker by insurgents during the recent elections. Since the image appeared a few months ago, conservatives have been venting outrage over the now-famous picture because it undermines Bush Administration objectives in the region claiming Iraq as a place that is on its way to peace and democracy.
Yesterday's article by Mark Glassman of The New York Times, "Blogs incensed over Pulitzer photo award" serves to legitimize the self-serving and uninformed rants of a few right-wing bloggers on the Internet. By spotlighting what conservative bloggers are calling a scandal, mainstream journalism is playing to the court of public opinion fueled by partisan politics.
Although I find the attacks launched by a few political bloggers over The AP's Pulitzer win to be somewhat annoying, speculative and inflammatory, I think a more insightful explanation about how the wire service recruits, hires, uses and trains freelancers may be appropriate. The outrage AP expresses over bloggers' accusations that the photographer who made the now-famous images had connections with the insurgents or that the pictures may have even been staged is a serious matter. At issue here is the question of whether we can trust AP to hire freelancers in Iraq that are politically neutral or impartial and maintain a strict code of journalistic integrity in reporting what they witness?
We are being a bit naive to think that there are Iraqi nationals that do not have a political stake in this war. After all, when the Western press leaves Iraq to Iraqis, scores will be settled and debts paid in blood. I think we are being foolish if we do not examine and question how news is gathered, disseminated and consumed in this conflict.
At the
same time, blogs must also be held accountable for the flames they fan. Bloggers must be held up to the same skepticism and light of reason that any other source of information receives. In this case, it is quite obvious which direction the "swift-boat" winds of partisanship and
blind flag-waving are blowing in from on the blogosphere. Are these bloggers on the government payroll?
Nevertheless, looking at how new content is produce in conflict zones is worthy of clarification.
The AP's practice of using in-country stringers or nationals to produce news content has always been a part-editorial and part-business decision. Further, using stringers to supplement staff coverage has been going on for a very long time, but this recent controversy raises important questions about the practice.
Nationals have connections, take tremendous risks and work for a lot less money than Western journalists. In addition, stringers usually to not get coverage for job-related injuries or illnesses. Stringers for wire services are usually recruited from local sources or are referred to Western journalists by in-country fixers, people that help outsiders make arrangements for coverage. Moreover, it is never clear how ethical values and professional standards transfer across cultures. What Western journalists may find to be ethically questionable behavior, in-country stringers may find no issue. That we can impose our journalistic and moral values on in-country stringers is implausible. The probability that Iraqi nationals subscribe to the same codes of conduct Western journalists attempt to abide by is low. This is not to make light of or disparage the truly heroic efforts of the stringers, but only to recognize the fact that Western journalists have a choice as to when to leave the country and fly to the safety of the Western world. The Iraqi journalists do not have this same luxury.
The possibility that journalistic tenets may be suspended or compromised for the sake of breaking news on a relentless 24-hour news cycle by using stringers is real and remains an issue requiring a lot more research.
While Western journalists are embedded with US troops, stringers provide alternative coverage because of their unique access and familiarity with the culture, politics and language.
The sad part about this growing controversy is that until recently, the conditions in which news stringers work has been largely ignored by the mainstream. I imagine that The AP isn't really interested in disclosing the business of relying so heavily on in-country hires and stringers to produce content. It is also a sort of catch-22 for the wire service giant, because establishing and maintaining the same level of access in-country stringers have is nearly impossible, not to mention extremely expensive. It behooves The AP and any other MSM to make transparent how stringers are recruited, hired and trained. The public deserves to know how the content produces by stringers can be viewed with the same level of credibility and trust afforded to the reports of highly-trained Western journalists.
