https://www.reuters.com/world/russian-journalist-killed-three-wounded-near-ukraine-frontline-2023-07-22/
A Russian war reporter was killed and three were wounded in Ukraine on Saturday in what the defence ministry said was a Ukrainian attack using cluster munitions, prompting outrage from Moscow.
Sorry... just for the record - why was there a Russian war reporter in Ukraine again? Could it perhaps have anything to do with that war Russia caused in Ukraine? Someone please jog my memory for me.
Imagine breaking a treaty, invading a country, starting a war, using cluster bombs and then getting angry at the other guy for defending his country with cluster bombs.
The Tankies here are hilarious.
The "reporter" worked for RIA, a state-owned news agency. He was a propagandist, not a reporter.
There's no evidence he was killed by cluster munitions beyond Russia's statement. We've seen the accuracy of those from the beginning.
This is a consequence of Russia's own actions. They're to blame for all of this.
I see one comment kind of supporting the Russian reporter, and only about the tone of the comments. That's it. I really don't see anyone in this comment section really supporting Russia here.
I 100% agree that this is Russia's own fault. Don't put non-soldiers next to soldiers actively fighting in a war, because there's a good chance they'll be hit by enemy munitions.
There's one commenter defending Russia. It's more anti-Ukraine and implying Russia's innocence (saying they COULD do the same when they already do so much worse).
But it's really just the one posting a bunch.
They found a copy of Sims 3 along with a letter signed "Illegible" near the body so it had to be the Ukrainians.
Even if he was killed by cluster bombs, so what? He's a Russian on Ukraine soil. That doesn't make him a combatant per she, but it doesn't make him a innocent bystander either.
Regardless of the situation, a reporter mixed in with enemy combatants isn't going to get special protections.
"You're not allowed to attack us if we have a journalist with us. That's the rules. Now don't mind us while we use civilians as target practice." - Russia
Aww poor babies. Where was their outrage when Ukrainian civilians were killed by Russia's use of cluster bombs?
Come on now, let's be fair: I'm sure Russian military has killed plenty of journalists too!
Reporters in Russia are propagandists. There is no press freedom in that country, so if you work as a reporter, you are not fulfilling the role of a journalist, but a state sanctioned propagandist.
A Russian reporter in Ukraine might as well be a part of the armed forces.
I don't see why a Russian "journalist" needs to be anywhere near the action, it's not like accurate reporting is expected...
You realise that Russians could say the same thing about Western/Ukrainian reporters, right? I'm not making any claim here about whether any particular journalists are propagandists. I'm pointing out that your argument could apply universally. Hence the need for universal rules against killing journalists.
Man, the ability to individually block any and all traffic from whole lemmy instances can't come soon enough. The fewer authoritarian regime apologists oozing out of the cesspool of lemmygrad I have to yet manually block the better.
Community for Lemmy app on Android can block entire instances. Now the main problem is that they're on lemmy.world as well.
Another one who completely misunderstands my point. Did you gloss over the part where I said that I wasn't calling any western journalist a propagandist? Only that Russian apologists could claim that and therefore 'justify' the killing of civilians (journalists). (Not that being a propagandist justifies the killing of a journalist, to be clear.)
You decided to shut off your brain. It’s illegal to criticize the war as a Russian. That isn’t true of Ukraine or it’s supporters. So you’re making a false comparison.
Are you just saying that russia could lie about western journalists? They can do that new, or whenever, or always. They’re dishonest about that kind of thing all the time, and they have broken so many international laws with this war that being worried that this could be their big opening to start breaking the law is just silly. So silly that I don’t think you’re arguing in good faith.
I'll try to make this point even more directly: killing journalists is a war crime.
There are some occasions when this war crime is excused. For example, when there is no other choice and the the killing is proportionate to the achievement of some other legitimate aim but only if the civilians have been warned effectively. That exception does not appear to apply in the instant circumstances because the victims (one died, three were injured) were all journalists.
Facts that do not alter this conclusion:
The reason I am talking about the killing of a Russian journalist is because he is the subject of the linked article in the post.
End of main point.
If the accusation of being a propagandist justified the killing of journalists, it would also negate the criminal aspect of any such killings by Russia. Russia could simply claim that western journalists are propagandists. It is irrelevant that you think all Russian journalists are propagandists because they will same the same in reverse. Westerners are not entitled to be the sole arbiters of which side is right. Further, there's no 'if' because being a propagandist does not justify the killing of journalists, according to international law.
On another occasion, I would enjoy talking through the state of western and Russian media but for now it is a red herring and is obfuscating the main point.
At the top of your post, you said some things that would take time to verify. At the bottom, you repeated your same absurd argument where you aren’t willing to accept that Russian journalists are propagandists even though it is illegal for them to be critical of the war. And you assert that western journalists are just as likely to be propagandists even though they are actually free to report what they want. You are arguing in bad faith.
I'm begging you to re-read what I said but read it carefully. I chose my words with care and they mean almost the exact opposite of what you think they mean.
If you would like to verify the top part, you could start here: https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/1115946
That isn’t true of Ukraine or it’s supporters.
Journalists have been jailed for exactly that in Ukraine and some NATO countries though, so it is definitely true for some of those places.
I know. I'm so tired of these lemmygrad accounts. I assume most are bots but no doubt plenty of idiots too. Makes actual socialism look bad.
Your argument reduces to solipsism. There are very obviously differences in how press freedoms are handled in Russia versus the west. Your comment clearly implies that you want to bypass that conversation.
No. I'm explaining one of the rationales behind the rule that even propagandists are protected in war as civilians.
Did you miss the part where he voluntarily went to an active battlefield as part of a violent invading force?
Russia avoids collateral damage by intending to kill journos and civilians. It really is that easy :)
If they are fabricating propaganda, why would they go to the front line? Why risk their life when, according to you, they're just going to make everything up and say what they want anyway? Seems like the easier, safer, and more effective propaganda would simply not involve going to the front line and instead sitting in a news room, with some CGI if they're feeling fancy, or using old footage if they're not, and propagating that?
Moreover, just because you don't like what a journalist is reporting, you can't condone killing journalists.
Are you also saying it'd be ok to kill Russian medics, since after all, they're just saving the lives of "Russian war criminals"? Should we suddenly open up the rules of war to allow killing medics on the side we're fighting? The logic you're using to defend the killing of journalists, when applied evenly, would say yes, we should allow killing of enemy medics.
Fortunately though, the Geneva Convention disagrees with your faulty logic and recognizes that non-combat roles including medics and journalists can not be targeted and indeed care should be taken to not inadvertently kill them.
It makes their propaganda look legitimate. Do you honestly think Russian reporting on the war is honest.
No one is talking about targeting journalists. But it’s rich Russia suddenly has scruples considering their own war crimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
Do you honestly think western reporting on the war is honest?
Of all the gigs that journalists do, reporting on “war” is the toughest. Not because of the dangers – though these must not to be underestimated. But when reporting “war”, journalists face off against the world’s most powerful vested interests and compete with society’s deepest cultural mythologies.
At its best, the Fourth Estate uncovered the My Lai massacre, the Abu Ghraib scandal and the incestuous relations in the Bush era of retired military officers, the US Defence Department and the “defence” industry.
In this incarnation, the Fourth Estate frightened even Napoleon. In his words:
"Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets."
But the military’s “reality” is powerful, insidious and covert. It is seductive.
And I, for one, am not speaking for Russia when I criticise peoples' happiness over the fact that a journalist has been killed in a war zone, just because they were Russian.
So you ignore the actual argument I made, how your logic, evenly applied, would apply to killing medics as well. And you ignore the fact that your opinion here is against the Geneva Convention. You conveniently ignore the part where you don't have to target them to have killing them be a problem; killing them is the problem. And your only retort is whataboutism: "yeah but Russia does bad".
Take a look back at my comment. Apply the reasoning, and tell me: do you think we should allow killing enemy medics? If not, explain to me your contradictory stance.
Why would he need to be on a battlefield and take useless risk for that? If all his job is to publish propaganda dictated by the Kremlin he can do it remote working from his living room.
You people never stop to think before commenting holy shit. Please go back to reddit.
Again, Russia could use the same logic with the west/Ukraine. Hence the rule to not kill journalists.
Russia claims all manner of outlandish drivel. If a journalist is killed by munitions you’ve been using for over a year yourself in a warzone you created I bring out my tiny violin.
By that same logic, Russia should shed no tears if those munitions kill journalists who can simply be rebranded propagandists. Hence the need not to judge whether a journalist is a propagandist and to avoid killing civilians holding press cards.
(Aside: Russia would be right in saying that the West locks up it's journalists, especially those who highlight war crimes, and could point to one resident of Belmarsh in particular as incontrovertible evidence.)
Russia can and does lie to justify their actions. So you're right that they can lie and then do whatever they want, as they always do.
And the West does not lock up all of its journalists. Dissent is literally illegal in Russia.
Russian telegram channels reported without proof the death may be attributed to the way they conduct a documentation.
They group up with multiple other people, including soldiers, and stay as a group continuously. This is to control that nothing gets shown which should not be visible and have a tight control.
Apart from the lacking proof I am sceptical this would be required as this news agency is under full Kremlin control, but rational reasoning isn't required for this authoritarian government.
It's called 'embedding' journalists. It's a real problem.
Edit: struggling to understand why this would be down voted. I'm not making any kind of value claim. It's a matter of law that journalists who ride with soldiers are 'embedded' and the advice is not to do it because it's dangerous and makes things more dangerous for other journalists.
Thanks for informing about the right term for it!
There might be downvote bots etc. Never bother too much about the vote count on pages like these. Some communities in total, but at least certain discussions can quickly circle jerk. I'm reading also downvoted comments, because it could be a valuable perspective, even if it went against the flow.
Chances are he was shot the back of the head with a Tokarev and they blamed the cluster bombs.
Here is a summary of the law from the ICRC text, Protection of Journalists and Media Professionals in Time of Armed Conflict (emphasis added):
::: spoiler Protection of journalists as civilians
Without providing a precise definition of them, humanitarian law distinguishes between two categories of journalists working in conflict zones: war correspondents accredited to the armed forces and “independent” journalists. According to the Dictionnaire de droit international public, the former category comprises all “specialized journalists who, with the authorization and under the protection of a belligerent’s armed forces, are present on the theatre of operations with a view to providing information on events related to the hostilities.” This definition reflects a practice followed during the Second World War and the Korean War, when war correspondents wore uniforms, enjoyed officers’ privileges and were placed under the authority of the head of the military unit in which they were incorporated. As for the term “journalist,” it designates, according to a 1975 draft UN convention, “...any correspondent, reporter, photographer, and their technical film, radio and television assistants who are ordinarily engaged in any of these activities as their principal occupation...” :::
::: spoiler Protection of war correspondents
War correspondents fall into the ill-defined category of “persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof.” Since they are not part of the armed forces, they enjoy civilian status and the protection derived from that status. Moreover, since they are, in a manner of speaking, associated with the war effort, they are entitled to prisoner-of-war status when they fall into the hands of the enemy, provided they have been duly authorized to accompany the armed forces. … :::
::: spoiler Protection of “embedded” journalists
Some ambiguity surrounds the status of “embedded” journalists … who accompany military troops in wartime. Embedment is not a new phenomenon; what is new is the sheer scale on which it has been practiced since the 2003 conflict in Iraq. The fact that journalists were assigned to American and British combat units and agreed to conditions of incorporation that obliged them to stick with these units, which ensured their protection, would liken them to the war correspondents mentioned in the Third Geneva Convention. And indeed, the guidelines issued by the British Ministry of Defence regarding the media grant the status of prisoners of war to embedded journalists who are taken prisoner. According to unofficial sources, however, it would seem that the French military authorities consider “embeds” as “unilaterals” who are only entitled to civilian status, as stipulated in Article 79 of Protocol I. A clarification on this point would seem essential. [...]
The way in which “unilateral” journalists surround themselves with armed bodyguards can have dangerous consequences for all journalists. On 13 April 2003, the private security escort of a CNN crew on its way to Tikrit (northern Iraq) responded with an automatic weapon after the convoy came under fire at the entrance to the town. Some journalists are concerned by this new type of behaviour, which is contrary to all the rules of the profession: “Such a practice sets a dangerous precedent that could jeopardise all other journalists covering this war as well as others in the future,” said Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Robert Ménard. “There is a real risk that combatants will henceforth assume that all press vehicles are armed. Journalists can and must try to protect themselves by such methods as travelling in bulletproof vehicles and wearing bulletproof vests, but employing private security firms that do not hesitate to use their firearms just increases the confusion between reporters and combatants.” :::
::: spoiler Loss of protection
… The fact that a journalist engages in propaganda cannot be considered as direct participation (see below). It is only when a journalist takes a direct part in the hostilities that he loses his immunity and becomes a legitimate target. … :::
::: spoiler Obligation to take precautionary measures when launching attacks that could affect journalists and news media
The lawfulness of an attack depends not only on the nature of the target – which must be a military objective – but also on whether the required precautions have been taken, in particular as regards respect for the principle of proportionality and the obligation to give warning. In this regard, journalists and news media do not enjoy a particular status but benefit from the general protection against the effects of hostilities that Protocol I grants to civilians and civilian objects. :::
::: spoiler The principle of proportionality: a curb on immunity for journalists and media
[…] It was only in 1977 that [the principle of proportionality] was enshrined in a convention, namely in Articles 51 (5) (b) and 57 (2) (a) (iii) of Protocol I. This principle represents an attempt to reduce as much as possible the “collateral damage” caused by military operations. It provides the criterion that makes it possible to determine to what degree such damage can be justified under international humanitarian law: there must be a reasonable correlation between legitimate destruction and undesirable collateral effects. According to the principle of proportionality as set out in the above-mentioned articles, the accidental collateral effects of the attack, that is to say the incidental harmful effects on protected persons and property, must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. [...] :::
::: spoiler Obligation to give advance warning of an attack
Although NATO contended that it had “made every possible effort to avoid civilian casualties and collateral damage” when bombing the RTS building, doubts were expressed about whether it had met its obligation to warn the civilian population in advance of the attack, as provided for under Article 57 (2) (c) of Protocol I (“effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit”). When the United States bombed the Baghdad offices of the Al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi television networks on 8 April 2003, killing one journalist and wounding another, it would also seem that no advance warning of the attacks had been given to the journalists. [...]
::: spoiler Obligation to give “effective advance warning”
Protocol I requires that “effective advance warning” be given. According to Doswald-Beck, “common sense must be used in deciding whether and how to give warning, and the safety of the attacker will inevitably be taken into account.” The rule set out in Article 57 (2) (c) most certainly does not require that warning be given to the authorities concerned; a direct warning to the population – by means of air-dropped leaflets, radio or loudspeaker messages, etc., requesting civilians to remain at home or stay away from certain military objectives – must be considered as sufficiently effective. [...]
In 1987, lieutenant colonel Burrus M. Carnaham, of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and Michael J. Matheson, deputy legal adviser to the US Department of State, expressed the opinion that the obligation to give warning was customary in character. This opinio juris is confirmed by the practice of a considerable number of States in international and internal armed conflicts. [...] :::
::: spoiler Conclusion It follows from the above that journalists and their equipment enjoy immunity, the former as civilians, the latter as a result of the general protection that international humanitarian law grants to civilian objects. However, this immunity is not absolute. Journalists are protected only as long as they do not take a direct part in the hostilities. News media, even when used for propaganda purposes, enjoy immunity from attacks, except when they are used for military purposes or to incite war crimes, genocide or acts of violence. However, even when an attack on news media may be justified for such reasons, every feasible precaution must be taken to avoid, or at least limit, loss of human life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects. [...] :::
Using cluster munitions against a group of civilians is disproportionate. The group included at least four journalists. One killed, three injured. The killing was unlawful (even if the journalist was a propagandist).
The correct response is not to be joyful that a Russian journalist has been killed (i.e. on the grounds that Russia has killed journalists). It is to uphold the universal principal that all killing of journalists in wartime is illegal. Otherwise, all that gesticulating about the ‘international rules based order’ and all that outrage at Russian war crimes is just empty posturing. And justifying war crimes because the enemy has committed them renders the Geneva convention meaningless.
United Nations Security Council, Resolution 1738 (2006), 23 December 2006, supports the above description, and (emphasis added):
Reaffirms its condemnation of all incitements to violence against civilians in situations of armed conflict, further reaffirms the need to bring to justice, in accordance with applicable international law, individuals who incite such violence, and indicates its willingness, when authorizing missions, to consider, where appropriate, steps in response to media broadcast inciting genocide, crimes against humanity and serious violations of international humanitarian law[.]
Otherwise, all that gesticulating about the ‘international rules based order’ and all that outrage at Russian war crimes is just empty posturing. And justifying war crimes because the enemy has committed them renders the Geneva convention meaningless.
Yet it is meaningless in the context of nuclear countries. International law works more as a suggestion as you can't forcibly enforce it against country that just says no to you.
But yes if confirmed by 3rd parties that Ukraine is responsible for the death of the journalist in the manner Russian Foreign Ministry described there should be consequences.
Let's see some "consequences" for the civilian deaths from Russian cluster bombs for the last year first.
These misanthropic comments are disgusting.
CNN* is an obvious US propaganda channel and yet we were all outraged when WikiLeaks revealed that US helicopter pilots gunned down fucking journalists in Iraq.
There are few rules in war.
You do not attack hospitals, first aid responders and journalists, for fucks sake. I don't give a fuck whose "side" this journalist belongs to. They are there to provide information of a battle field that would otherwise be lost.
When Russia attacked a hospital some time in 2022 after the war started, I was disgusted.
What has happened to you people. wtf.
Rules in war? This entire war is already illegal. Russia shouldn't even be in Ukraine in the first place. And yes, if you're a frontline reporter, then it might happen that you end up in the crossfire, especially from artillery fire. Or do you think Ukraine saw some reporter through their drones and decided to target them? Stop being an apologist for Russia's aggression.
Edit: Also, Russia does not even have a free press, and with that they don't actually have reporters, but propagandists.
I'm fairly certain the same people would be outraged at reports of Russia killing civilians. Apparently Russian civilians, and journalists at that, don't count.
Then they pretend shock when it is highlighted that dehumanising humans is part and parcel of fascism.
One could be forgiven for thinking that outrage over Russian war crimes is disguised happiness at yet another 'justification' for prolonging the war; it's clearly not motivated by a wish for ending the suffering.
Apparently Russian civilians, and journalists at that, don’t count.
Disgustingly, I have definitely heard people make that case with a straight face, look at all the people celebrating a Russian civilian being killed by a shark. They only care about warcrimes from The Other Team.
AFAIK he was standing right next to an MRLS shooting at the Ukrainian forces, and the Ukrainian forces shot back.
And I'm talking about desensitized comments almost cheering for and ridiculing the death of a Russian journalist (or evil propagandis, which makes it a-ok). Journalists know what they're signing up for when reporting out of war zones. It happens.
You still don't need to fucking be glib about it. That's all. I'm out of this discussion. You're all lost.
