• 133arc585@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If they are fabricating propaganda, why would they go to the front line? Why risk their life when, according to you, they’re just going to make everything up and say what they want anyway? Seems like the easier, safer, and more effective propaganda would simply not involve going to the front line and instead sitting in a news room, with some CGI if they’re feeling fancy, or using old footage if they’re not, and propagating that?

      Moreover, just because you don’t like what a journalist is reporting, you can’t condone killing journalists.

      Are you also saying it’d be ok to kill Russian medics, since after all, they’re just saving the lives of “Russian war criminals”? Should we suddenly open up the rules of war to allow killing medics on the side we’re fighting? The logic you’re using to defend the killing of journalists, when applied evenly, would say yes, we should allow killing of enemy medics.

      Fortunately though, the Geneva Convention disagrees with your faulty logic and recognizes that non-combat roles including medics and journalists can not be targeted and indeed care should be taken to not inadvertently kill them.

    • Pili@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why would he need to be on a battlefield and take useless risk for that? If all his job is to publish propaganda dictated by the Kremlin he can do it remote working from his living room.

      You people never stop to think before commenting holy shit. Please go back to reddit.