Sorry that he died, but really-- approaching a bunch of soldiers in the middle of the night like that? Suicide.
The soldiers are just as afraid as anyone else there. How were they supposed to know he's not a terrorist? They fired a warning shot he should have turned back.
[deleted]
There was a whopping what, five seconds between the warning shot and the kill shot? It's not as if the crew rushed forward after the shot. They stopped in their tracks and weren't even close to the troops. The Israeli soldiers may have been nervous, but it was obvious that they were also incompetent in this case. I understand caution on the troops' part, but it's hard to see where you get the idea that somehow they were justified in shooting a reporter with no weapons.
shareWith that camera on his shoulder earlier in the program I was half expecting him to get shot cause they might think it a weapon. In the middle of the night how could the soldiers be expected to know who and what he was.
shareThe unfortunate truth is, as the IDF and now the American troops know, suicide bombers often disguise themselves as unarmed citizens and reporters. All reporters know to not approach troops in the middle of the night like that, and especially to immediately turn and leave with a warning shot.
shareI really found the film worthwhile as it gave a graphic insight into the conflict. It revealed the plight of the Palestinians in terms of the restrictions imposed on them and the continual military presence. It also showed the hatred of the Palestinians towards the Israelis and the threat that they pose as it clearly showed they would stop at nothing to cause death and destruction to Israelis.
There are 3 things that strike me about this film:
The director may have wanted to risk his own life in making the documentary but I think it was a step too far to put the rest of the film crew at risk. Any loss of life is to be regretted and this sort of work is dangerous, but his leading the team into an area of military combat was, in my opinion, reckless.
I was appalled that the team filmed the children making hand grenades. The children risked losing fingers, limbs even their lives through doing this and the filming condoned what they were doing. Anyone who cares at all for children would have stopped the filming and told them that if that was what they wanted to do, then it was up to them but not in front of the camera. The cameras encouraged them to do it and we don’t know what further incentives were given for the children to cooperate. This, in my judgement, was unacceptable.
I have problems with the ‘bearing witness’ idea that is spoken of in the extras. These interviews put forward the idea that there was a responsibility that everyone should see what was going on in this area. But filming a situation necessarily changes it. I do no think that filming people in their moments of most profound distress is in anyone’s interest. Wouldn’t you want to put down the camera and comfort these people rather than carry on filming?
[deleted]
I don't agree, because I think that their presence there changed the situation. The children seemed to be showing off or at least putting on a bit of an act for the crew...don't you thik so? I just don't think it is possibly to be there without influencing the situation.
shareThat's completely ridiculous regarding the children.a journalists job is to record the truth of what is happening, not to interfere.secondly,I doubt those grenades would be anything more than smoke bombs. Lastly, there us a famous case off a journalist in the 90s who photographed a picture of a starving infant inAfrica and win the pulitzer for it. He was later asked if grew did anything for the child by moving her and he said no because her family would have left her there on their way to get food and moving her would mean she was lost from them (this was the right thing to do), however he was largely criticised and alienated, and ended up committing suicide a few years later. The point is that a journalist in those situations often can't do anything, it would always befcriticised for one reason or other. In any case, following James death, the children were inspired to follow in his footsteps as cameramen, so I guess the lesion there is that children are products if their environment.
shareYeah - I couldn't really understand why they approached the tank at night. Why not just wait until morning? When we learned that a second cameraman stayed behind to record their movement, it's almost like they knew that there would be trouble.
share