In the dark of night, three masked men wielding Kalashnikov assault rifles and what are referred to as ‘jungle knives’ in those parts, broke into a house in Taloqan in Northern Afghanistan.  The house was occupied by several foreign journalists covering ‘America’s war against terror.’  The men first entered a room shared by Martin Adler, a photographer, and Bo Liden, a correspondent, from the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet.  As one man held the journalists at gunpoint, the others robbed them of all their cash and gear – including satellite telephones, computers and camera equipment.  Mission accomplished they threatened to kill them, but left the room after the Afghan translator for the journalists intervened on the latters’ behalf and pleaded for mercy.  The gunmen then proceedeed to another room in the house, shared by the crew of Swedish TV 4.  Stroemberg, one of the crew members, opened the door when he heard somebody knocking, but slammed it shut when he saw the gunmen – but not before receiving a hit.  The men fired several more shots, but finding no inlet finally fled, leaving Stroemberg, 42, bleeding from the chest.  “As soon as he opened the door there was a bang,” Rolf Porseryd, the reporter with whom Stromberg was sharing a room, told newsmen,  “Ulf fell over me, screaming, ‘I’m hit.  I’m shot.  I’m in pain, I cannot move, my legs, my legs’…,” he added.  Though his colleagues rushed him to a local hospital, Stroemberg succumbed to his injuries – bringing to eight the toll of journalists felled in the course of the latest Afghan conflict. 

            Before this incident there were two other episodes in which journalists were killed. On November 11, two French radio journalists (Johanne Sutton and Pierre Billau) and a writer for a German magazine, Volker Handloik, died when the armoured vehicle in which they were traveling was ambushed by Taliban soldiers near Dashti Qala. Following this incident four other journalists – two from the Reuters news agency, one from the Italian daily Corriere della Sera,  and one from the Spanish newspaper El Mundo  – were ambushed and killed by unidentified men on the road between the eastern city of Jalalabad and the capital, Kabul.

            Ironically, more reporters have been killed to date in the Afghan war than coalition troops actually fighting at the front.  Observers contend that journalists have become targets not only because they are unarmed and perceived as potential gold mines given their expensive equipment and seemingly limitless supply of cash, but also because for hundreds of former Taliban soldiers and supporters both Afghan and Arab, who are still armed and free, the mainly western journalists are seen as symbols of the western force that has brought about the Taliban’s rapid collapse.  The killing of the Swedish journalist is significant because for the first time, assailants appeared to be seeking out journalists at their places of residence as compared to earlier attacks which took place on roadsides and appeared random.

            At least 1500 journalists from all over the world are currently stationed in Afghanistan and frontline states to cover the present crisis, many of them doing so at great risk.  Some of those engaged in reporting other conflicts in trouble spots elsewhere have, however, also paid with their lives.  So far this year 90 media personnel have been killed in the line of duty, as compared to 62 in 2000, according to the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ).  In fact, the IFJ has declared 2001 the worst year for journalists.

            Media watchdog organisations believe that more reporters have been killed in the last 10 years than in the previous 30.  They contend that the dangers for the journalistic community have been magnified by the technology developed in the past 10 years – portable computers, satellite telephones and digital cameras – which allow the modern correspondent to file stories with live action virtually from the trenches – i.e. from the actual frontline.  However, never before perhaps has a war been so widely publicised, analysed and covered by the media as the current Afghan conflict.     

            Pakistan played host to hundreds of media personnel for over two months since the conflict first erupted.  Following September 11, the international media descended on Pakistan since it was considered the window to largely sealed off Afghanistan.  While in Pakistan, life was relatively stress-free for the journalists, notwithstanding fierce competition to catch the breaking story first and cater to demands from their bosses to provide groundbreaking bulletins every day even when there were none.  The real test of their mettle came after the fall of Kabul and subsequently Jalalabad. 

            Before Kabul fell, foreign journalists in Pakistan had scrambled to obtain visas for Afghanistan from the Taliban embassy in Islamabad.  Some even attempted the trip across minus the benefit of valid documents.  However, only two batches of journalists of 20 members each were officially allowed to cover the war inside Afghanistan – and that too amidst strong rumours in Islamabad that the Taliban authorities had issued the necessary travel sanctions only to those who forked out hefty sums.  “It was difficult to comprehend what the criteria for issuing visas to Afghanistan was,” said a Chinese TV reporter, who was earlier informed that “since China is still a friendly country” he was at the top of the list of those journalists who had been shortlisted to travel to the country whenever the Taliban authorities deemed fit.  As it turned out, he was not included in either group of journalists who were invited to Kabul.

            Once Kabul fell, although most of the western embassies in Pakistan issued warnings to journalists against visiting Afghanistan – and such warnings were distributed door-to-door at their hotel rooms in Islamabad – they did not pay any heed to the admonitions, making their way to the war zone any which way they could, the sooner the better.

            Most of the journalists stationed in Islamabad contacted assorted Peshawar-based Afghan Pashtun warlords and requested them to take them to Afghanistan.  At least one hundred journalists thus made their way to Jalalabad, crossing the border from Torkham, and a few dozen of them subsequently proceeded to Kabul from Jalalabad by road.  In their enthusiasm for the ‘big story’ few of them worried themselves about the essentials for what remains a combat zone: flak jackets and helmets.  Soon thereafter, other media personnel followed suit.  But any complacency that may have set in after the initial euphoria of being in Afghanistan, currently the centre of the media universe, was shattered when the four journalists were shot dead by bandits on their way to Kabul from Jalalabad.  “It could have been anybody.  It was crazy to move into Afghanistan without ascertaining the exact situation on the ground first,” said an Australian cameraman who refused to accompany a reporter colleague to Kabul after the news of the murders reached Islamabad.

            Immediately after the killings almost all the media organisations, who had  after initial hesitation, been blithely despatching their reporters stationed in Pakistan to Afghanistan, did a turnabout and advised them not to risk venturing into the war zone until further orders.  However, the UN thereafter resumed relief operations in the country and began charter flights from Islamabad to Kabul.  Assorted media organisations then decided to take the opportunity to send their respective journalists on these flights for 2500 US dollars per seat.  Others chartered entire UN aircraft exclusively for their crew and equipment for a whopping 55,000 US dollars for a one way trip.  “In normal circumstances, a seat on a UN flight from Islamabad to Kabul costs 200 to 300 US dollars, but the rates have been increased to 2500 US dollars due to the revised insurance costs,” said a foreign journalist who had availed the service.  There are, however, many other journalists working for comparatively less well- heeled media organisations that are risking travel by road to get to Kabul.

            To a large extent it is experienced correspondents who are veterans of earlier conflicts that have been sent to cover the Afghan imbroglio.  Some organisations have even arranged for war training for journalists who have been despatched to Kabul.  The European Broadcasting Union (EBU), which provides satellite facilities to journalists, organised first aid training for its employees in Islamabad who were being sent to Afganistan.  “Although this costs a huge amount of money, this training is worth it for media personnel covering the war,” said an EBU representative, who maintained that this training is essential for journalists who are vulnerable to injury in high risk situations such as war.  Some media organisations have sent special security personnel along with their crews in Afganistan.

            Despite all these measures by the media networks however, dozens of journalists who have managed to make it to Afghanistan have been robbed, beaten and even killed.

            Senior journalists who have covered assorted conflicts around the globe, maintain that covering this war is proving a more difficult assignment than the others, since it defies most conventional wisdom about conflict situations.  Said John Fisher Burns, a senior correspondent of The New York Times who has covered all the major conflicts in recent times, from Bosnia to Chechnya to East Timor to the Gulf War, “This is a particularly dangerous area, because this is a war in an unfriendly terrain without frontiers and frontlines and the country is generally ruled by warlords – where there is no central authority and there is a general breakdown of law and order.”  He maintained that in earlier wars journalists had travelled behind armies to ensure their safety, but when the frontlines and frontiers are not properly drawn, it is difficult, if not impossible, to weigh the story against the degree of risk, and even the most experienced journalist can find himself in peril.  Burns cited the example of Harry Burton, an Australian cameraman for Reuters, who, applying the general rule of ‘safety in numbers’ had decided to travel with fellow journalists in a convoy while in Afghanistan.  “However, the car he was riding in was stopped and all the four journalists within fell victim to the assassins’ bullets.  So the general rule of ‘safety in numbers’ didn’t apply,” he contended.  When asked what kind of security measures he and his crew are taking to minimise the risk, a journalist presently based in Kabul said, “Common sense, a non-suicidal approach and a reluctance to become a hero.  When it comes to decision-making this seems to me to be much more important than flak jackets and helmets.”

            Another journalist stated how even substantive experience in covering conflict sitautions did not make reporting in Afghanistan less problematic.  “It is very difficult to apply any past experience or even any war training in covering this conflict,” said Joyce Hannah of ZDF (German Television) who had covered the war in East Timor.       

            Members of the foreign media contend that their sense of insecurity during this conflict is compounded by the fact that unlike the Gulf, Chechnya and East Timor during the war, even the common people in Afghanistan are armed to the teeth.  Furthermore, in the absence of one central authority substituted by a group of warlords, some of them hostile even to each other, the situation is verging on the anarchic.  And due to a prolonged civil war and drought in the past few years, life has become very cheap.  People are willing to risk it for a few dollars.

            Then of course there is the hostility of the local populace to contend with.  According to journalists currently in Afghanistan, many of the local communities blame the western countries for the mess in their country.  Walter Heinz, a German journalist who has covered almost all the major conflicts in Africa in recent years, said that even Africa was much easier to work in than Afghanistan.  “In Africa, the children would never come close to your camera.  But even in an Afghan refugee camp, you find yourself surrounded by hostile children who can suddenly turn violent and start pelting stones at you,” he said.

            The journalists who are in Afghanistan are also battling on another front: trying to comprehend local values.  Said Rolf Leitner, a cameraman for ZDF (German TV), who has covered wars in Croatia, Bosnia and Chechnya and is currently in Kabul, “Covering conflicts in these places was difficult, but I’m finding it even more difficult to work in Afghanistan.  I can’t make out the difference between a Pashtun, a Tajik, a soldier of the Northern Alliance or a member of the Taliban.”  Leitner maintained that compounding the identification problems was the fact that he couldn’t assess from their body language whether the locals were hostile or friendly.  He cited a recent example when a woman came up to him while he was filming and started to talk to him.  “I kept nodding my head and saying yes, and sorry, thinking she was angry with me, but later my translator told me all she was saying was that I should learn the language before filming the Afghans, because unless I do so I wouldn’t be able to really understand their problems,” he said.

            Meanwhile, hundreds of journalists who are presently stationed in Quetta in Balochistan are finding it difficult to assess the risk element as they wait for the fall of Kandahar, the spiritual city of the Taliban.  Most of them were ready to proceed to Kandahar, prompted by the invitation they received apparently on behalf of the Taliban government to come and cover the war from inside Kandahar.  However, they were warned by the local authorities and Northern Alliance representatives to desist from availing of the invitation since the Taliban authorities might capture them and hold them as ‘human shields’ as a last defence against the allied forces.

            Some journalists were preparing to go to Kandahar regardless of the warnings, but were forced to reconsider when one of their colleagues was taken captive near Chaman in Pakistan apparently by Taliban operatives.   According to reports, Ken Hetchman, a Canadian journalist who writes for the Montreal Mirror, was kidnapped merely 50 feet inside Afghanistan territory on the border with Chaman.  Hetchman was reportedly attempting to talk to refugees along the border.  According to reports, the Taliban leaders threatened to kill Ken Hetchman, who was allegedly kept in a small cell bound hand and foot.  Hetchman was subsequently released by his captors in unknown circumstances.

            Observers contend that among the media, it is the television employees and those working for the agencies that are at the highest risk while covering conflicts.  “If you are reporting for a paper or magazine, you can even do so from the safety of a café, but when you are with TV, you have to be present at the spot to physically cover the event,” maintained a TV cameraman of a Japanese television station.

            Sources disclosed that the major media networks have asked their staff to avoid taking too many risks because since they are the clients of television agencies like APTN and Reuters, they receive pictures and stories from around the world in any case, fed by the personnel of these agencies.  Thus it is generally felt that the employees of these two agencies are under the maximum pressure to perform.  The statistics bolster this assessment.  “APTN has lost three cameramen in two-and-a-half years, while Reuters has lost three employees in 18 months,” said a senior journalist.

            The murder, loot and plunder in Afghanistan following the defeat of the Taliban has prompted many media organisations to pull out their reporters from Kunduz and Taloqan, the areas now completely controlled by the Northern Alliance, whose track record vis- à-vis governance is far from exemplary.  Some of those leaving these towns are headed for Kabul, believed to be relatively safer. 

            Discussing the quality of the information emanating from the Afghan conflict, particularly before the collapse of the Taliban, a senior TV journalist who spent two months in Pakistan before he left for Afghanistan said, “Initially, the protest rallies in Pakistan were milked for dramatic effect because of a lack of pictures from Afghanistan.  But these images sent out the totally wrong signal that Pakistan was facing a civil war.  Later, the Northern Alliance pictures were repeated over and over, again sending the wrong signal of a strong military force, which of course the Northern Alliance was not: they certainly could not have made any progress without the American bombing campaign.  So, there have been misleading pictures right through, not to mention the computer images produced by the Pentagon.  It’s been a rather bad war for television. Worse than the Gulf war.” 

            Perhaps the statement by the South Asia correspondent ZDF (German TV), who is presently based in Kabul was the definitive statement for this conflict: “It’s a war you can’t see and which you don’t get any first-hand information about. That’s what makes it a sort of phantom war.  The Americans seem to be very economical with what they call the truth, and the Taliban’s information policy was rather bizarre.  It’s extremely difficult to get a clear idea of what’s really going on, for example in Kunduz or in the Kandahar region.  The basic rule remains – don’t trust anybody.”