Ognian ‘Oggy’ Boytchev, former BBC producer and colleague of John Simpson, writes a rebuttal against criticism of his belief that journalistic drones will make war correspondents "redundant" within ten years.
Frontline journalists risk violence, imprisonment and death when covering war zones. They ensure that viewers watching safely from their living rooms are informed about devastating conflicts in places like Gaza, Syria and Iraq. But the use of drone technology in hostile environments may mean correspondents will soon be watching from a safe distance too.
Ognian ‘Oggy’ Boytchev, a former BBC producer who accompanied veteran war reporter John Simpson on countless assignments, said the role of frontline cameramen would become largely “redundant” because of the advantages of drone technology.
In his memoir Simpson & I: Between Two Worlds, Mr Boytchev argues that drones will replace cameramen in hostile environments within the next ten years because they can film in environments which would normally be too dangerous for journalists.
Drone technology has been around for some time, with hobbyists and amateur photographers using them to capture a range of incredible aerial images. Now mainstream news outlets are increasingly turning to the small, remote controlled devices to deliver unique frontline footage, from documenting protests in Kiev and Bangkok to illustrating the scale of the Somerset floods.
Mr Boytchev, who retired from the BBC in 2011 after a 25 year career, added that reporters would still need to sort through footage and conduct interviews even if they were no longer needed on the frontline.
However, not all journalists share his optimistic view of the technology.
Hugh Sykes, BBC foreign correspondent, told the RTS that he does not believe that drones will become widely used in war zones.
He said: “Images from a drone may be dramatic, but it will be hard for reporters to put them into context… I think you need to be on the ground for that.”
Journalist Harry de Quetteville also raised concerns in his Telegraph column. He said that that taking the “human connection” out of conflict reporting would lead to “war porn”.
In the article below, Mr Boytchev clarifies his beliefs on the future relationship between drones and journalists.
By Rebecca Stewart
DRONES, WAR ‘PORN’ AND MANIPULATION
By Ognian Boytchev
I salute the countless reporters and photo-journalists who over the years have put their lives in danger to bring the news from inhospitable places to the viewers in the comfort of their living rooms. I was one of them.
The reality is that the footage we, war journalists, capture in the field isn’t always ‘striking’ or insightful. In many cases we are forced to stand a good way from the frontline for our own safety, or if we are on the frontline, we can’t stay there for long.
This is why I passionately believe that within the next decade or even sooner unmanned drones fitted with high definition gyroscopic cameras will change the role of the war reporter, as we know it.
Drones will also help verify and confirm footage taken by ordinary people, activity that has become known as ‘citizen journalism’.
Yes, it’s often the case that reporters who go into the most dangerous conflict zones strongly believe in a cause and sometimes are seen as taking sides. Their reporting is not seen as ‘unbiased’ sometimes because their independence is viewed through the prism of their moral judgement. In my opinion, there are regimes and terrorist organisations which cannot be afforded the benefit of the doubt. This is not manipulation. Taking a moral stance is not to be discouraged or diminished.
Drones can’t do that.
Brave journalists put themselves at the centre of the story and often become the story. Who would forget the striking images of John Simpson reporting live from the site of a ‘friendly fire’ airstrike in Northern Iraq in 2003? We may have forgotten who dropped the bomb. We may have forgotten why John was there but we do remember the image of a man in a flak jacket in the middle of a burning inferno bringing you the news.
Drones won’t get plaudits. The journalists who will operate them would.
Drones won’t replace journalists but will enhance their performance. Journalists will still be needed to interpret the pictures and provide context. Reporters in the field will still be required to have experience and knowledge.
I wish the BBC had drones when it reported from Grozny during the two Chechen wars in the 1990s. The place became a ‘no-go’ area for independent journalists after indiscriminate murder and kidnappings. The world knew very little of what was going on there. The Russian forces and their local henchmen were able to operate with impunity away from the gaze of the TV cameras.
I wish I had a small noiseless drone to assemble and operate in Tehran during the Green Revolution in June 2009. It would’ve provided priceless pictures of the scale of the demonstrations, which the authorities constantly branded as ‘small’ and the work of a handful of people in the pay of foreign powers.
I wish we had drones in Syria where often conflicting reports, especially about the alleged use of chemical weapons, remained unverified because no one was able to visit the locations in question.
I wish we had drones now to offer a glimpse of life in Mosul today under the control of the Islamic State.
Some may call it war porn. I call it responsible journalism. Whether the opponents of journalistic drones like it or not the technology is already here. And it’s here to stay. Some new models are so quiet that can be flown in the dead of the night without being heard. The range of the small and midsize drones is constantly improving. They can go behind enemy lines, overflow a running battle, or transmit live pictures from inaccessible natural disasters.
All we need now is a rational debate about the legal and ethical sides of their usage.