Was Stephen Farrell culpable for the deaths of Sultan Munadi and Corporal John Harrison?

Did Stephen Farrell, the 46-year-old New York Times reporter recently released from Taliban captivity, put his life and that of his translator Sultan Munadi, not to mention those of the troops involved in his rescue in needless danger? Whilst news sites debate the need for incisive action from British forces today when negotiations were apparently progressing, this is a question that many have begun raising as being more pertinent to this tragic loss of life. However can journalists really do their job in such scenarios 'safely'?

There is a calculated physical risk involved in procuring a story in war zones. As war correspondents all over the world will agree, and certainly having recently finished Jon Snow's autobiography 'Shooting History' as an example, there are daily occasions where chasing the story put the lives of oneself and those around him or her in danger.

So why was Mr Farrell there? The NYTimes website reports that he was 'reporting the aftermath of NATO air strikes that exploded two fuel tankers hijacked by Taliban militants'. Make no mistake, reporting from war zones is a dangerous business. But journalists have as much responsibility to the accurate reporting of what is going on, from both sides of the trenches, as they do to the safety of themselves and those around them. As a public, we should trust them. Editorially, their employers do trust them and their judgement; otherwise they would not be in such dangerous parts of the world. If journalists were to accept every single warning given to them, then little would be reported from these locations, and that which was reported would be directed by the discretion of those institutions issuing such danger warnings. If, for instance, the British government was keen to ensure some part of an operation in Afghanistan not be relayed to news agencies and by extension the public, and journalist were complicit in adhering strictly to danger warnings, then the government could almost certainly use such warnings to ward off unwelcome media coverage and thus cloak and censor what we see of war zones. Reporting from these places is a journalistic responsibility.

Surely though someone must be to blame? Certainly Farrell will have received warnings from security services, governments and possibly even the NYT; he may well have been at fault for either staying in one place too long, or attracting unwanted in attention in any number of ways. However we should not think for a second that if it hadn't been Mr Farrell, then no-one else would have been captured. Engineers, aid workers, NGO advisers - all operate in these dangerous environments. Mr Farrell did not kidnap himself, nor did he create the sentiment that forced his kidnappers into thinking that this was the best way to go about procuring their demands. There are bigger forces at hand than those. One could certainly look at Farrell's record and argue that he was playing with fire, but in a situation such as that which currently exists in the Middle East, this is part of the job.

Clearly without all the information we can only speculate as to the exact goings on of the rescue mission, and it may well be that Taliban commandos were planning on executing one of, if not both of the hostages. This itself would not be surprising given that reports on websites such as The New York Times - Farrell's employer - as well as the BBC point out the Taliban's willingness to punish Afghan translators and reporters for apparently colluding with western journalists. They cite the incident involving an Italian national captured in Iraq who was released while his Afghan translator was 'beheaded.' Many websites report that Munadi was well aware of his fate, the NYTimes suggesting that 'Mr. Munadi became worried about his own fate, and told Mr. Farrell, “I think you’re going to be O.K., but they’ve got it in for me.”' Certainly quotes from Farrell indicate that his colleague's death was an act of selflessness, claiming that “He was trying to protect me up to the last minute.” As they left the room under commando siege, “he moved out in front of me.” As such, the action taken by British special forces should be applauded. After all, well executed or not, their intentions were patriotic, designed to free a British national and his colleague from captivity and possible death.

When incidents such as these occur, everyone looks for where the blame should end. Without wanting to trivialise such episodes however, when endeavouring to report honestly and sincerely from war zones, death is always not far away.

--------------------------------

This reporting itself comes in the week after an extensive debate highlighted by The Observer over what should and should not be reported, with specific references to images. This resonates further with what the US government, in this case, would wish the American public to see.

Vietnam changed the landscape for war as for the first time images were transmitted back in such a way as to bring the violence and horror seen by those on the frontline into people's living rooms. Today a quick search on the internet allows you access to images terrifying even by horror movie standards (please do not click if you in anyway upset by graphic images of war. This is not meant to offend, only to demonstrate what is out there within easy reach of a keyboard, which is why I've linked a link.)

As a nation at war, we have a responsibility to those on the front-line: to ensure that they are there for the right reasons. If we shut our eyes to what is happening to them while they are out there, then we are not taking account of all the information necessary to ensure that we have made the right decision.