Reporters on Galton

tlb wrote:

penny wrote:Did the GA have an option of inviting the press in general? The GA would have wanted to ensure operational security. OpSec would have prevented the GA from sharing their findings with the press. We all remember what happened when the SLN lost their surprise factor. I don't think the GA could risk a leak.

The MA knew they were going to get a visit anyway. But I don't think the GA knew that they knew. Same as the SLN.

If they had those concerns, then why invite Audrey? I would expect that there were more reporters than just her along. At least one from each system involved, plus a few more represent from major news organizations.

The GA would want independent proof that their warnings of a previously unknown antagonist were proved correct.

Jonathan_S wrote:And rules and security around embedding reporters in military units should be well established. Basically it boils down to not telling them where you're going or what you're doing until after you leave (with them aboard) and then not giving them any way to file a report until after you've finished your mission.

It would have been arrogant and irresponsible to take a shipload of reporters to a battle the GA couldn't have known it would win. Because had they lost and lost badly and every ship in the fleet destroyed, the MA would not have allowed any witnesses to return. There might have been more reporters but, well, I shall guard my vote on this one too.

penny wrote:Did the GA have an option of inviting the press in general? The GA would have wanted to ensure operational security. OpSec would have prevented the GA from sharing their findings with the press. We all remember what happened when the SLN lost their surprise factor. I don't think the GA could risk a leak.

The MA knew they were going to get a visit anyway. But I don't think the GA knew that they knew. Same as the SLN.

tlb wrote:If they had those concerns, then why invite Audrey? I would expect that there were more reporters than just her along. At least one from each system involved, plus a few more represent from major news organizations.

The GA would want independent proof that their warnings of a previously unknown antagonist were proved correct.

Jonathan_S wrote:And rules and security around embedding reporters in military units should be well established. Basically it boils down to not telling them where you're going or what you're doing until after you leave (with them aboard) and then not giving them any way to file a report until after you've finished your mission.

penny wrote:It would have been arrogant and irresponsible to take a shipload of reporters to a battle the GA couldn't have known it would win. Because had they lost and lost badly and every ship in the fleet destroyed, the MA would not have allowed any witnesses to return. There might have been more reporters but, well, I shall guard my vote on this one too.

That is the risk every war reporter takes, including Audrey. How is it less "arrogant and irresponsible" to take her alone?

tlb wrote:

penny wrote:Did the GA have an option of inviting the press in general? The GA would have wanted to ensure operational security. OpSec would have prevented the GA from sharing their findings with the press. We all remember what happened when the SLN lost their surprise factor. I don't think the GA could risk a leak.

The MA knew they were going to get a visit anyway. But I don't think the GA knew that they knew. Same as the SLN.

tlb wrote:If they had those concerns, then why invite Audrey? I would expect that there were more reporters than just her along. At least one from each system involved, plus a few more represent from major news organizations.

The GA would want independent proof that their warnings of a previously unknown antagonist were proved correct.

Jonathan_S wrote:And rules and security around embedding reporters in military units should be well established. Basically it boils down to not telling them where you're going or what you're doing until after you leave (with them aboard) and then not giving them any way to file a report until after you've finished your mission.

penny wrote:It would have been arrogant and irresponsible to take a shipload of reporters to a battle the GA couldn't have known it would win. Because had they lost and lost badly and every ship in the fleet destroyed, the MA would not have allowed any witnesses to return. There might have been more reporters but, well, I shall guard my vote on this one too.

That is the risk every war reporter takes, including Audrey. How is it less "arrogant and irresponsible" to take her alone?

I am surprised you don't see the difference. Risking the life of a single reporter rather than the lives of many – and the happiness of their families – represents a chasm of difference. And who is to say what the MA would have ultimately did to those stranded hapless reporters. I say they would have been tortured and become human guinea pigs for their experiments. At the very least they would have been given nanites and made into human weapons.

I don't recall our military shuttling hordes of civilian reporters into war. They would have become the headlines.

And … Audrey would have been home. Among her people. Somewhat.

penny wrote:I am surprised you don't see the difference. Risking the life of a single reporter rather than the lives of many – and the happiness of their families – represents a chasm of difference. And who is to say what the MA would have ultimately did to those stranded hapless reporters. I say they would have been tortured and become human guinea pigs for their experiments. At the very least they would have been given nanites and made into human weapons.

I don't recall our military shuttling hordes of civilian reporters into war. They would have become the headlines.

And … Audrey would have been home. Among her people. Somewhat.

Audrey would NOT be with the people that she thinks are her own.

I am surprised that you see nothing wrong with one reporter, but are horrified with two. Or is it nothing wrong with four, but horrified with five? Where do you draw the line, since you see no problem with one?

The reporters are as much volunteers as any of the soldiers, and you see no problem with the soldiers going to war.

There have been civilian reporters in almost every small scale war since the Korean Conflict.

War zones deadlier than countries at peace for journalists in 2023

This year, 23 journalists have been killed in the course of their reporting in war zones. Most of them – 17 – were killed in the war between Israel and Hamas (including 13 in Gaza), during which 63 journalists lost their lives in total (including 56 in Gaza) if we include journalists killed in circumstances unproven to be related to their duties. For the first time in five years, more journalists have been killed in war zones than in peace zones.

From Reporters without Borders

penny wrote:I am surprised you don't see the difference. Risking the life of a single reporter rather than the lives of many – and the happiness of their families – represents a chasm of difference. And who is to say what the MA would have ultimately did to those stranded hapless reporters. I say they would have been tortured and become human guinea pigs for their experiments. At the very least they would have been given nanites and made into human weapons.

I don't recall our military shuttling hordes of civilian reporters into war. They would have become the headlines.

And … Audrey would have been home. Among her people. Somewhat.

But the GA wouldn't know known that when they allowed Audrey to come along - as far as they know she's just a well know League reporter.

And the US absolutely shuttles civilian reporters into war (hordes we can quibble about) - see Embedded Journalism which reminded me that ABC anchor Bob Woodruf was seriously injured by an IED while along on a military operation in Iraq in 2006.

And in WWII war correspondents (civilian reporters) flew along on bombing raids, accompanied amphibious operations, convoy missions, as well as the army -- and many did die.

The famous Pulitzer Award winning war correspondent and newspaper columnist Ernie Pyle, for example, was killed during the invasion of Okinawa.


I doubt the GA would bring along hundreds of reporters -- but I also doubt they allows a League reporter (who might let their biases from the recent want cause them to produce unfair or slanted reporting) to provide the only news coverage of the event. There were probably a dozen or more reporters from various organization scattered throughout the fleet so there would be broader coverage both in terms of what each saw but also in terms of perspectives, biases, and what readers/viewers they reach.

(Also if you bring only one reporter and they die, even if only that one ship was damaged/destroyed, you fail at getting the independent reporting that was the whole point. Better to allow multiple along and spread them out so one hit can't get them all)

Jonathan_S wrote:

penny wrote:I am surprised you don't see the difference. Risking the life of a single reporter rather than the lives of many – and the happiness of their families – represents a chasm of difference. And who is to say what the MA would have ultimately did to those stranded hapless reporters. I say they would have been tortured and become human guinea pigs for their experiments. At the very least they would have been given nanites and made into human weapons.

I don't recall our military shuttling hordes of civilian reporters into war. They would have become the headlines.

And … Audrey would have been home. Among her people. Somewhat.

But the GA wouldn't know known that when they allowed Audrey to come along - as far as they know she's just a well know League reporter.

And the US absolutely shuttles civilian reporters into war (hordes we can quibble about) - see Embedded Journalism which reminded me that ABC anchor Bob Woodruf was seriously injured by an IED while along on a military operation in Iraq in 2006.

And in WWII war correspondents (civilian reporters) flew along on bombing raids, accompanied amphibious operations, convoy missions, as well as the army -- and many did die.

The famous Pulitzer Award winning war correspondent and newspaper columnist Ernie Pyle, for example, was killed during the invasion of Okinawa.


I doubt the GA would bring along hundreds of reporters -- but I also doubt they allows a League reporter (who might let their biases from the recent want cause them to produce unfair or slanted reporting) to provide the only news coverage of the event. There were probably a dozen or more reporters from various organization scattered throughout the fleet so there would be broader coverage both in terms of what each saw but also in terms of perspectives, biases, and what readers/viewers they reach.

(Also if you bring only one reporter and they die, even if only that one ship was damaged/destroyed, you fail at getting the independent reporting that was the whole point. Better to allow multiple along and spread them out so one hit can't get them all)

There is a marked difference in taking journalists into a war zone as opposed to taking them into battle. There is even more of a marked difference in taking those journalists into a war zone that the military is familiar with, instead of one where nothing is known about the area of conflict or the order of battle or the weapons that will be deployed by the enemy. Double ditto those notions onto taking them into battle.

But shuttling a lot of reporters into a region that does not recognize any treaties that protect reporters in case they are captured is grossly irresponsible. What's worse, the GA knew just how ruthless the MA are.


BTW, I have a problem with taking ONE reporter into the unknown. Audrey was a special case. And yes, she would have been subject to the protection of the Alignment.

There are specific provisions in international law to protect humanitarian workers and journalists during armed conflict. Under Article 79 of Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, which codifies a customary rule, journalists in war zones must be treated as civilians and protected as such, provided they play no part in the hostilities.

Again, Audrey was a special case and I am sure she was debriefed regarding the dangers. She probably dismissed any danger or threat to herself. Also, taking a lot of reporters into battle can risk the lives of officers tasked with protecting them.

penny wrote:Again, Audrey was a special case and I am sure she was debriefed regarding the dangers. She probably dismissed any danger or threat to herself. Also, taking a lot of reporters into battle can risk the lives of officers tasked with protecting them.

Audrey was NOT a special case as far as she or Galton were concerned. She thought that she was aligned with a pacifist group that was totally opposed to the evil, militaristic group at Dalton. We have no evidence that Galton knew anything about her; because she did not have a contact with them, it was with Darius.

Do you really believe that reporters who volunteer to go to a war zone, do not then also go into battle?

If you are convinced that Galton would not recognize international treaties, then you should also be concerned with all the soldiers who are about to fight a group that does not subscribe to the Deneb Accords.

Correction. They wouldn't have simply taken the reporters into battle. That was a major battle.

It also could have jeopardized the success of the mission. As I recall, Audrey's quarters were located aboard Imperator with Honor. If there were more reporters were they also located aboard Imperator? What would have happened if things didn't go as planned, like what will happen when the GA hyper into Darius?; and Honor has to go on one of her death rides to save the day? Will Honor's tactics become subject to the passengers she has aboard?

BTW, I don't recommend Honor going on a death ride against the MA in Darius. They'll gladly die to take her off the chess board.

penny wrote:Correction. They wouldn't have simply taken the reporters into battle. That was a major battle.

It also could have jeopardized the success of the mission. As I recall, Audrey's quarters were located aboard Imperator with Honor. If there were more reporters were they also located aboard Imperator? What would have happened if things didn't go as planned, like what will happen when the GA hyper into Darius?; and Honor has to go on one of her death rides to save the day? Will Honor's tactics become subject to the passengers she has aboard?

To what statement is that a correction? The GA obviously took Audrey into a major battle. No one changes tactics or strategy simply because there are reporters along.

I do not remember Honor ever going on a death ride when attacking. Her death rides at Basilisk, Grayson (twice) and in the Selker Rift were in defense; because if she had lost, then more lives would have been lost. On offense at Galton and at Sol, she carefully kept her fleet outside the hyper-limit to permit a retreat to hyperspace if things went badly.

tlb wrote:The GA obviously took Audrey into a major battle. No one changes tactics or strategy simply because there are reporters along.

I do not remember Honor ever going on a death ride when attacking. Her death rides at Basilisk, Grayson (twice) and in the Selker Rift were in defense; because if she had lost, then more lives would have been lost. On offense at Galton and at Sol, she carefully kept her fleet outside the hyper-limit to permit a retreat to hyperspace if things went badly.

And historically war correspondents certainly went into major battles or things just as risky.

In WWII The USAAF put together a group of 8 of them ("The Writing 69th") to fly on 8th air force bombers on raids over Germany, despite the high loss rates on those missions. A bomber averaged about about a 3% chance of being lost on each mission. If all 8 had flown, each in a separate bomber, there would have been about a 1 in 4 chance of one of them getting shot down! (As it was only 6 flew and, in fact, one of them Robert Post was shot down and killed on that first mission)

Yes if your opponent is a signatory to, and actually honors, the Geneva Conventions then under Article 4(A)(4) of Geneva Convention III a war correspondent who falls into their hands, as representatives of the media who are accredited to and accompany the armed forces without being members thereof, is categorized as a POW and should be given all the rights of such. But that provides no protection from the destruction of a vehicle the correspondent might be in, or from enemy fire during the battle they're covering. War correspondent is a risky job to volunteer for; and that would be just as true in the Honorverse as it has been in our world. But that doesn't seem to stop them from volunteering, nor from militaries permitting them to accompany forces into combat.