Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh
Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh
Wednesday 21 April 2010
Reuters journalists should thank Michael Reupke for justifiably taking the current editor-in-chief to task for a mealy-mouthed response to the video footage of the killing of Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh by US forces in Baghdad.
A robust public statement is not a matter of "sounding off" – as Tom Glocer calls it – but of holding the authorities in a democracy that purports to respect the work of journalists to account for their actions and, in this case, their unconscionable failure to follow through on their own commitments.
In August 2003, almost four years before Namir and Saeed were killed, Reuters cameraman Mazen Dana was shot dead in Iraq by US forces who said they mistook his camera for an RPG launcher. "We will do everything in our power to make sure things like this do not happen again," a US military spokesman, Lt. Col. Guy Shields, said at the time. In March 2004, after Reuters had pushed vigorously for a proper investigation of Mazen’s killing, a US military review exonerated the soldiers involved but made important recommendations to help make war zones less dangerous for journalists. One of the recommendations, which Reuters welcomed, was to "investigate better methods of identifying journalists in the theatre of war". It is questionable whether the US military ever did anything about its own recommendations, given that the helicopter crew who killed Namir and Saeed so readily concluded yet again that cameras were weapons.
Thomson Reuters needs to speak out before another journalist with a camera falls victim to the US military’s failure to take the steps it recommended in its own review into one of all too many needless killings. “Quiet engagement” without public accountability won’t work.
Paul Holmes
A robust public statement is not a matter of "sounding off" – as Tom Glocer calls it – but of holding the authorities in a democracy that purports to respect the work of journalists to account for their actions and, in this case, their unconscionable failure to follow through on their own commitments.
In August 2003, almost four years before Namir and Saeed were killed, Reuters cameraman Mazen Dana was shot dead in Iraq by US forces who said they mistook his camera for an RPG launcher. "We will do everything in our power to make sure things like this do not happen again," a US military spokesman, Lt. Col. Guy Shields, said at the time. In March 2004, after Reuters had pushed vigorously for a proper investigation of Mazen’s killing, a US military review exonerated the soldiers involved but made important recommendations to help make war zones less dangerous for journalists. One of the recommendations, which Reuters welcomed, was to "investigate better methods of identifying journalists in the theatre of war". It is questionable whether the US military ever did anything about its own recommendations, given that the helicopter crew who killed Namir and Saeed so readily concluded yet again that cameras were weapons.
Thomson Reuters needs to speak out before another journalist with a camera falls victim to the US military’s failure to take the steps it recommended in its own review into one of all too many needless killings. “Quiet engagement” without public accountability won’t work.
Paul Holmes
Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh
Wednesday 21 April 2010
Two small points in response to Hans Ouwerkerk's intervention. Firstly I am not English, secondly Hans should know me well enough to know that I am concerned not only for the welfare of journalists and that I would have made as much fuss for a technician, a salesman or an accountant. I was merely applying the conventional wisdom, reaffirmed many times when issues of murder by government forces, kidnap and unlawful detention have been discussed in the International Press Institute or the Inter-American Press Association which groups employers as well as editors. That wisdom says make a loud noise and keep the spotlight on the case, never let it off the front pages or out of sight until you have the desired result. An exception is if noise is likely to endanger the life of the victim further. If that has been the case I of course bow to Tom Glocer's and David Schlesinger’s knowledge of the situations. It is perhaps time I shut up. Let me cast one more small pebble: It is galling that the nation which purports to teach the world democracy, human rights, the rule of law and freedom, should so blatantly flout the principles it claims to uphold. Every American should be ashamed of the recent events on which we have touched in this column.
Michael Reupke
Michael Reupke
Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh
Tuesday 20 April 2010
Since 1984 Reuters PLC was motivated to provide shareholder value and not just governed by news or news people as Michael Reupke implies. It was then headed by a non journalist Australian CEO and an English Editor-in-Chief (Michael Reupke). Thereafter, by an English CEO and a Dutch Editor-in-Chief. Would any of these two preceding tandems have reacted differently? They probably might have, simply because they were different. Would their reactions have been "better" or "more appropriate"? We can only be left to speculate.
Hans Ouwerkerk
Hans Ouwerkerk
Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh
Monday 19 April 2010
I read with displeasure Michael Reupke's rebuke of the editor. David and I are pursuing a quiet yet we believe more effective engagement with the US authorities. Our goal is protecting our journalists – that is paramount. If I believed just sounding off could achieve that goal or bring Namir or Saeed back I would not hesitate.
Tom Glocer
Tom Glocer
Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh
Sunday 18 April 2010
I am told that many people have found Reuters response to the murder of two Reuters staff shown in the video recently released by the website WikiLeaks to have been surprisingly low key and are keen to understand what might have motivated such a response and why Reuters current statement is so inadequate. I cannot answer that, never having worked with Thomson Reuters, a very different company from Reuters, nor with the individuals at the head of Thomson Reuters. Much has changed since my day, one may have to look for the reasons there. The company is now largely owned by a Canadian shareholder whose heartbeat is seemingly governed by money, not by news nor news people. The CEO and the Editor-in-Chief are American, but I would not speculate how far that might motivate them to refrain from irritating the Washington regime. I could see no direct link. The CEO is a lawyer, not a journalist. The new company is headquartered in New York. I left it to my interlocutor to speculate herself. I could offer no insight, indeed I would like to know the answers myself.
Michael Reupke
Michael Reupke
Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh
Wednesday 07 April 2010
The flabby response to the shameful murder of photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and driver Saeed Chmagh by reckless US forces is not reassuring. What of their families? Why do we leave it to others to make the running? Is this a Thomson effect?
Michael Reupke (outraged and angry!)
Michael Reupke (outraged and angry!)
