Hi fellow seniors, do you think the media should get so close to danger in war zones?

I think news reporters MUST, Lily.

For countless centuries, the vast majority of populations have been either left in a state of ignorance or fed false/distorted accounts of history (by the victors).

Nowadays - 'embedded' news reporters are allowed to be in the front-line of the action - so as to corroborate what actually takes place - and must necessarily expose themselves to front-line action risks.

In Aleppo, Assad's local 'loyal' troops on his pay-roll - including snipers - are trying to suppress 'rebels/terrorists' - by indiscriminate bombings and shootings - PICKING OFF anyone on the streets in defiance of a general clamp-down - BE they armed rebels shoppers in search of food or water, women, children or foreign news reporters, trying to check/corroborate the facts of what is actually happening.

And isn't such need to know the facts - unadulterated, devoid of spin and misrepresentation a matter of greatest concern to us all - however many 1000s of miles we are away from wanton death and loss of innocent lives ?

I look at life as if it is a spiriutal experience. Why do people even go to war? It makes no sense to me but it just isn't what I came into this life to experience.

I do respect that even though it seems to be a drama I don't want to have it is what others came to experience. Some believe it makes one safer. I can't understand that in any way. Some feel like a hero. Some find a purpose. We all have different things we get into as a way of expressing life.

A reporter doing that work is chosing that experience whether they are conscious of that or not. Some people complain about the life they feel they have forced to live but we are all living the life we haer chosing to live. So as long as this person is not hurting me I have no reason to stop them from living the life they are living. So Yes, they should do whatever they want.

For some, being a war correspondent is a big deal and they go for these dangerous jobs. I don't know much about WWI, but I do know there were many brave mostly men who did these jobs during WWII, and thank goodness they did, for their reports from the battlefronts must have been invaluable to the people of the Allies. There is a man who reports for our NBC organization named Richard Engel, and I always think about him and worry a little bit, for he's always in Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria. We have many brave female reporters, too, one on 60 Minutes and I'm sorry I can't remember her name, Laura something, who was carried off by a crowd of insurgents and was raped or nearly raped.

The news follows the action. Always did and always will. Battlefield reporters dating back to the times of Alexander the Great and probably even the Bible, are often our only direct connection to the violent events that shaped mankind. Reporters have died for their stories in war zones. Your question, though an honest one, isn't a matter of opinions. Reporters have a commitment to bring the news to the people and do what they have to do to make sure it is as unbiased as possible. We need to separate reporting the news from the bloviators like Rush Limbaugh who sit in their safe offices snarfing down greasy snacks while pontificating upon the events of the day. They are not reporters. I am old enough to remember vaguely Edward R Murrow reporting live from London during the blitzkrieg during WWII. I certainly remember the GI in the trenches editorial comics by Ernie Pyle who was killed in action.

Sometimes opinions of bystanders can effect the way business is conducted. Sometimes, the credo of an honorable profession determines how that profession will carry out its duties. As the late and revered James (Scotty) Reston of the New York Times put it, "My job is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."

No, they shouldn't. I don't believe that it is our thirst for the news pictures that is so great; I think it is the media people who are seeking the notoriety that goes with the danger they put themselves into and who want to convince us that we need this up-close coverage. Remember the first Iraqi war and the "Scud Stud," the reporter who would go on the air and make it appear that he was in mortal danger from scud missiles, who would duck and dodge as he was reporting on incoming missiles? I don't believe that his ego would have let him do otherwise and I believe that about a number of media hacks who do the same thing: it's for them not us.

I don't think they really need to. A country's own army/media section could give the public a run down of were the action is and who is involved or killed whether it was the enemy army, own army personnel or civilians. Like the first answerer said, I think the reporters (governed by their hierarchy) can give manipulated reports and set the scene for sensationalism. I have watched Sixty Minutes segments that certainly looked staged. But then again misrepresentation in reporting may be what the armed forces want in order to put the opposition off track.

I don't think the media personnel are forced to go to war zones - those who do that sort of work would thrive on the 'excitement' and want to do that type of reporting.

Lily, it seems to be about the rewards which come with the best reporting. This system of reporting is dangerous and some reporters are willing to put themselves in harms way for the perfect story.

One good example are the reporters who report on the incoming hurricane. They stand out in tough winds with people hanging onto them! If I were their mother, I would want to spank their bottoms for scaring me to death! One thing is certain, I do not pity those who get ravaged in any situation when they are all about the best story! I would think their lives would mean more to them.

I think you make a very valid point. These people put themselves in harm's way just to get the scoop. If they get wounded, they take the medical staff away from the troops to attend to them instead of the service men. Personally, I can wait a day or two to find out what happened. Same thing with Hurricane Isaac. The idiots are out there in the worst of it so we can see how awful it is. Frankly, I will take their word for it instead.

I really don't know. At least they have a choice in getting up so close, soldiers don't.

Makes me think of the film, "The Bang-Bang Club"

War correspondents who were action junkies and took risks just for big stories.

I don't personally want to see all the gore up close.

The correspondents employed by the networks don't have a say in the matter, if that's what their assignment is, they have to go.

All they care about is news and reporting and have no respect for human life, its only about money to the networks, that's all.