By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Due to the high number of journalist casualties, Reuters has stopped sharing team locations with the Israeli military in Gaza. This decision was made after a Reuters cameraman was killed in an Israeli attack on Nasser Hospital, where the agency’s journalists were operating. The IDF stated they had “no further comment,” following claims by the IDF that a camera at the hospital was being used to direct terrorist activities, a claim disputed by journalists on the ground. As a result, the IDF ordered an investigation into “several gaps” including the “authorization process” before the attack.
Read the original article here
Reuters stopped sharing Gaza locations with Israel after “so many journalists” killed by IDF, a move that speaks volumes about the current reality on the ground. The decision, reportedly made in response to the alarming number of journalist deaths in the region, marks a significant shift in how the news agency operates, and why. It seems to reflect a deep-seated lack of trust in the assurances of safety and a growing belief that the Israeli military is either deliberately targeting journalists or, at the very least, indifferent to their presence and safety.
Best-case scenario, one might argue, is that Reuters believes Israel simply doesn’t account for the presence of journalists when making strike decisions. They either don’t factor it in or ignore the information provided, whether concerning an individual or a specific location. The worst-case scenario, however, paints a far more disturbing picture: Reuters may believe that Israel is actively using the information provided to target the journalists themselves. Either way, Reuters appears to have concluded that withholding location information will, paradoxically, increase the safety of its personnel.
This is a grim situation. The images circulating, particularly the photograph of a bloodied EOS 6D camera, are a stark visual reminder of the risks journalists are facing. The casualties are not simply numbers; they are individual stories, experiences, and lives lost. The high number of journalists killed in Gaza since October 7th, 2023, surpasses the combined total of journalists killed in major conflicts like the U.S. Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Yugoslav Wars. The numbers suggest a deliberate targeting of journalists, and it’s hard to argue otherwise.
The implications of Reuters’ decision are far-reaching. By ceasing to share its journalists’ locations, Reuters essentially admits that the safety protocols previously in place were insufficient and, in their view, may have even been counterproductive. The fact that they are choosing to operate in this manner sends a message that suggests they believe Israel is deliberately targeting journalists. One might think in a perfect world that providing the information would enhance safety, but the fact that Reuters feels the opposite is telling.
It is also important to consider the broader context, like the question of who is considered a journalist in Gaza. This has, of course, become a complex and contested issue. If Hamas operatives are using journalists as human shields, or if some journalists are themselves affiliated with Hamas, the situation gets even murkier. However, that does not negate the responsibility to protect those whose profession is to report the truth. It does not give carte blanche to target journalists indiscriminately.
Some might argue that Reuters is endangering its journalists by withholding information, claiming that it prevents the IDF from differentiating between legitimate targets and journalists. However, the sheer number of journalist deaths, even if some were in close proximity to Hamas operatives, would suggest that providing location information has not prevented journalists from being targeted.
Then, of course, there’s the disturbing suggestion that certain individuals are actively seeking to weaponize this situation. Those who are sympathetic to the Israelis may believe that the journalists are merely Hamas puppets. On the other hand, those opposed to Israeli actions might see the situation as a deliberate attempt to silence critics, an exercise in controlling the narrative.
Ultimately, Reuters’ decision reveals the gravity of the situation. It underlines a breakdown in trust and exposes the immense danger journalists face in the region. This action is not just about a news agency changing its internal procedures; it’s about a fundamental shift in the landscape of war reporting, highlighting the lengths journalists must go to in order to protect themselves while covering a conflict.