Embedded Journalism: A case study of Danish Siddiqui
Define the rules of war, the most inhuman trade. Albeit war is the worst tragedy known to mankind but still we strive to seek the information of what’s happening on the ground.
We need information! So, who is going to give us all the information and data?
The answer is, journalists and journalists can never be silent. They strive to show the truth to the eye of the public.
A journalist’s job is to tell the right facts to the public. With this responsibility, they are given a huge amount of authority. A complex place to follow this trade is in the military and reporting on the war, and here comes the term “embedded journalism”.
The term “embedded journalism” refers to joining news journalists with military units engaged in military conflicts. At the same time, we could use the term for many historical interactions between journalists and the military. The word embedded journalism first appeared to be used in the media coverage of the 2003 invasions of Iraq. The U.S military reacted to pressure from the country’s news media, who were baffled by the level of access imparted. During the 1990 gulf war and the 2001 U.S Invasion of Afghanistan, the practice of embedded journalism has been criticized as part of a propaganda drive of how embedded journalists followed the invading forces as Cheerleaders at the start of the war in march 2003. There were as many as 775 reporters, and photographers were moving as embedded journalists.
Embedded journalism allows journalists to tell stories from a different point of view. They have a chance to display the truth that isn’t being reported. However, it isn’t easy to do so while still maintaining independence and staying true to their ethical values. Embedded journalism takes two uneasy bedfellows — the media and the military — collectively combining beneath the same tent. Both parties stand to benefit from the arrangement. For the press, the embed gives some “strong pictures’ ‘ and “feeds the news. For the military, embedding means authority over the journalist and the potential to utilize the media organization to propagate positive messages about the war’s progress. A risk of “embedding” is that it puts journalists in the wrong place at the wrong time.
There is also a fundamental conflict within the purposes of the media and the military. ‘Objective’ journalists will want to depict ‘the good’ and ‘the bad.’ The military will want to emphasize ‘the good’ and downplay ‘the bad.’ Journalists covering Afghanistan will directly go for dramatic pictures, while the military will be more concerned with portraying political and economic development. Journalists are ideologically inclined toward freedom, whereas the military needs privacy for operational security and the well-being of serving soldiers. The army has a war to fight and win; journalists are looking for stories.
This year, a Reuters journalist, Danish Siddiqui, an alumnus of Delhi’s Jamia Millia Islamia, Danish Siddiqui’s last assignment, documented the Taliban offensive as a journalist embedded with Afghan Special Forces.
He covered the Battle of Mosul in 2016–17, the Nepal earthquake in April 2015, the 2019–2020 Hong Kong rallies, the 2020 Delhi riots, and the second Covid wave in India. He was also a member of the Reuters photography team that won the Pulitzer Prize in 2018 to cover the Rohingya refugee crisis.
Danish was embedded as a journalist with Afghan special forces based in the southern province of Kandahar and had been recording on fighting between Afghan commandos and Taliban fighters. He was ambushed and murdered in a crossfire in Afghanistan on July 15th. Afghan special forces had been coping with retaking the main market area of Spin Boldak when Siddiqui and senior Afghan officials were killed in the crossfire.
But according to the Washington examiner, he was murdered. As per the information, he was alive when the Taliban captured him. They confirmed his identity and murdered him. The Taliban did not stop there. They severely mutilated his body.
Then the question arises why?
The Taliban wanted to make a mark that foreign journalists are not appreciated in Afghanistan. Danish was executed for carrying out his duties. And still, we see no concern about the dangerous working conditions of journalists in periods of armed conflict. Danish, who was secure with the Afghan special forces, reported its many encounters with the Taliban. He was hurt in one skirmish that may have worked as an early warning sign for Reuters to withdraw its photojournalist. But Reuters persevered with Danish, and ultimately, another attack claimed his life.
Journalists are finding it increasingly difficult to report a conflict every day. Added to the regular dangers of war are the unpredictable risks of bomb attacks and the use of more complicated weapons against which even the training and protection of journalists are worthless. Embedded journalists work in a hazardous atmosphere. They operate with the armed forces and move about with them, which means that they depend on them for security when they are on the battleground. Like the militants, they are not sure of being alive in the next hour, leaving alone to survive the battle. The enemy sees embedded journalists as a target, making it difficult for them to accomplish their jobs because they are afraid to move around alone. And still, photojournalists like Danish Siddiqui risk their lives at the crossroads where history is taking a significant turn.
To conclude, we can say that embedded journalism has its pros and cons. The advantages of working with the military as an embedded journalist are that one gets support, protection from the enemy, and facilitates transparency between the government and the army. On the other hand, embedded journalism has so many disadvantages, like risking lives, and the quest for objectivity arises out of the benefits journalists receive from the military.
