Are you acting as a Journalist? What you need to know..

[Bob]

Of course we cannot escape what has been done to Assange.

The reporting on human rights violations and the flagrant abuse of journalists for reporting is right at the core of media world-wide.

The holier-than-thou stance by the perps harming journalists for revealing the atrocities and violation of human dignity, of human rights is quite abhorrent.

To just let the perps get away with rights violations allows a basic tenet of life and liberty and dignity to be swept under the carpet. It is called "adoption by measure" - allowing a perp to get away with it without taking a stand means the PERP can continue to get away with it.

Keep that in mind that keeping silent is an AGREEMENT that the perp can get away with it.

Below is some data that Reporters and Journalist NEED TO KNOW. It is about one's safety and security and LIFE.. Don't ignore it.

---------------------

Sources and Information

Protecting sources is a cornerstone of journalism.

This is especially important when covering topics such as violent crime, national security, and armed conflict, in which sources could be put at legal or physical risk.

Freelance journalists, in particular, need to know that this burden rests primarily with them.

No journalist should offer a promise of confidentiality until weighing the possible consequences; if a journalist or media organization does promise confidentiality, the commitment carries an important ethical obligation.

In your communications, protect your sources.

Consider whether to call them on a landline or cell, to use open or secure email, and to visit them at home or the office.

Most news organizations have established rules for the use of confidential sources. In a number of instances, news organizations require that journalists in the field share the identity of a confidential source with their editors. Journalists in the field must know these rules before making promises to potential confidential sources.

In the United States and many other nations, civil and criminal courts have the authority to issue subpoenas demanding that either media outlets or individual journalists reveal the identities of confidential sources. The choice can then be as stark as either disclosure or fines and jail. Media organizations that have received separate subpoenas will make their own decisions on how to respond.

Time magazine, facing the prospect of daily fines and the jailing of a reporter, decided in 2005 that it would comply with a court order to turn over a reporter’s emails and notebooks concerning the leak of a CIA agent’s identity, even though it disagreed with the court’s position.

Media companies have the legal right to turn over to courts a journalist’s notebooks if they are, according to contract or protocol, the property of the media organization.

If a journalist is a freelance employee, the media organization may have less authority to demand that a journalist identify a source or turn over journalistic material to comply with a court subpoena.

In some nations, local journalists covering organized crime, national security, or armed conflict are especially vulnerable to imprisonment, torture, coercion, or attack related to the use of confidential information.

In 2010, CPJ documented numerous instances throughout Africa in which government officials jailed, threatened, or harassed journalists who made use of confidential documents. In Cameroon, for example, authorities jailed four journalists who came into possession of a purported government memo that raised questions of fiscal impropriety.

One of those journalists was tortured; a second died in prison. It’s important to understand that your ethical responsibility could be severely tested in conflict zones by coercive actors who may resort to threats or force.

Journalists should study and use source protection methods in their communications and records. Consider when and how to contact sources, whether to call them on a landline or cell phone, whether to visit them in their office or home, and whether to use open or secure email or chat message

Consider using simple code or pseudonyms to hide a source’s identity in written or electronic files. Physically secure written files, and secure electronic files through encryption and other methods described in Chapter 3 Technology Security.

The identity of a source could still be vulnerable to disclosure under coercion.

Thus, many journalists in conflict areas avoid writing down or even learning the full or real names of sources they do not plan to quote on the record.

Laws on privacy, libel, and slander vary within and between nations, as do statutes governing the recording of phone calls, meetings, and public events, notes the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society.

In many nations, local press freedom groups can provide basic details of privacy and defamation laws, along with the practices of authorities in applying those laws.

(Many of these organizations are listed in Appendix E Journalism Organizations; a comprehensive list of press freedom groups worldwide is available through the International Freedom of Expression Exchange.)

Being a journalist does not give one the right to steal, burglarize, or otherwise violate common laws in order to obtain information.

Security and Arms

Most journalists and security experts recommend that you not carry firearms or other gear associated with combatants when covering armed conflict. Doing so can undermine your status as an observer and, by extension, the status of all other journalists working in the conflict area.

In conflict zones such as Somalia in the early 1990s, and Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2000s, media outlets hired both armed and unarmed security personnel to protect journalists in the field. While the presence of security guards hindered journalists’ observer status, many media organizations found they had little choice but to rely on private personnel to protect staff in uncontrolled situations.

Carrying a firearm on other assignments is also strongly discouraged. In nations where law enforcement is weak, some journalists under threat have chosen to carry a weapon.

In making such a choice, you should consider that carrying a firearm can have fatal consequences and undercut your status as an observer.


Sexual Violence

The sexual assault of CBS correspondent and CPJ board member Lara Logan while covering political unrest in Cairo in February 2011 has highlighted this important security issue for journalists. In a 2011 report, CPJ interviewed more than four dozen other journalists who said that they, too, had been victimized on past assignments. Most reported victims were women, although some were men. Journalists have reported assaults that range from groping to rape by multiple attackers.

Being aware of one’s environment and understanding how one may be perceived in that setting are important in deterring sexual aggression. The International News Safety Institute, a consortium of news organizations and journalist groups that includes CPJ, and Judith Matloff, a veteran foreign correspondent and journalism professor, have each published checklists aimed at minimizing the risk of sexual aggression in the field.

A number of their suggestions are incorporated here, along with the advice of numerous journalists and security experts consulted by CPJ.

Understand the culture and be aware of your surroundings. Travel with colleagues and support staff. Stay close to the edges of crowds and have an exit route in mind.

Journalists should dress conservatively and in accord with local custom; wearing head scarves in some regions, for example, may be advisable for female journalists. Female journalists should consider wearing a wedding band, or a ring that looks like one, regardless of whether they are married. Journalists should avoid wearing necklaces, ponytails, or anything that can be grabbed.

Numerous experts advise female journalists to avoid tight-fitting T-shirts and jeans, makeup, and jewelry in order to avoid unwanted attention.

Consider wearing heavy belts and boots that are hard to remove, along with loose-fitting clothing. Carrying equipment discreetly, in nondescript bags, can also avoid unwanted attention. Consider carrying pepper spray or even spray deodorant to deter aggressors.

Journalists should travel and work with colleagues or support staff for a wide range of security reasons. Local fixers, translators, and drivers can provide an important measure of protection for international journalists, particularly while traveling or on assignments involving crowds or chaotic conditions.

Support staff can monitor the overall security of a situation and identify potential risks while the journalist is working. It is very important to be diligent in vetting local support staff and to seek recommendations from colleagues. Some journalists have reported instances of sexual aggression by support staff.

Experts suggest that journalists appear familiar and confident in their setting but avoid striking up conversation or making eye contact with strangers. Female journalists should be aware that gestures of familiarity, such as hugging or smiling, even with colleagues, can be misinterpreted and raise the risk of unwanted attention. Don't mingle in a predominantly male crowd, experts say; stay close to the edges and have an escape path in mind.

Choose a hotel with security guards whenever possible, and avoid rooms with accessible windows or balconies. Use all locks on hotel doors, and consider using your own lock and doorknob alarm as well. The International News Safety Institute suggests journalists have a cover story prepared (“I’m waiting for my colleague to arrive,” for example) if they are getting unwanted attention.

In general, try to avoid situations that raise risk, experts say. Those include staying in remote areas without a trusted companion; getting in unofficial taxis or taxis with multiple strangers; using elevators or corridors where you would be alone with strangers; eating out alone, unless you are sure of the setting; and spending long periods alone with male sources or support staff.

Keeping in regular contact with your newsroom editors and compiling and disseminating contact information for yourself and support staff is always good practice for a broad range of security reasons. Carry a mobile phone with security numbers, including your professional contacts and local emergency contacts. Be discreet in giving out any personal information.

If a journalist perceives imminent sexual assault, she or he should do or say something to change the dynamic, experts recommend. Screaming or yelling for help if people are within earshot is one option.

Shouting out something unexpected such as, “Is that a police car?” could be another. Dropping, breaking, or throwing something that might startle the assailant could be a third. Urinating or soiling oneself could be a further step.

The Humanitarian Practice Network, a forum for workers and policy-makers engaged in humanitarian work, has produced a safety guide that includes some advice pertinent to journalists. The HPN, part of the U.K.-based Overseas Development Institute, suggests that individuals have some knowledge of the local language and use phrases and sentences if threatened with assault as a way to alter the situation.

Protecting and preserving one’s life in the face of sexual assault is the overarching guideline, HPN and other experts say. Some security experts recommend that journalists learn self-defense skills to fight off attackers. There is a countervailing belief among some experts that fighting off an assailant could increase the risk of fatal violence.

Factors to consider are the number of assailants, whether weapons are involved, and whether the setting is public or private. Some experts suggest fighting back if an assailant seeks to take an individual from the scene of an initial attack to another location.

Sexual abuse can also occur when a journalist is being detained by a government or being held captive by irregular forces. Developing a relationship with one’s guards or captors may reduce the risk of all forms of assault, but journalists should be aware that abuse can occur and they may have few options. Protecting one’s life is the primary goal.

News organizations can include guidelines on the risk of sexual assault in their security manuals as a way to increase attention and encourage discussion. While documentation specific to sexual assaults against journalists is limited, organizations can identify countries where the overall risk is greater, such as conflict zones where rape is used as a weapon, countries where the rule of law is weak, and settings where sexual aggression is common.

Organizations can set clear policies on how to respond to sexual assaults that address the journalist’s needs for medical, legal, and psychological support. Such reports should be treated as a medical urgency and as an overall security threat that affects other journalists.

Managers addressing sexual assault cases must be sensitive to the journalist’s wishes in terms of confidentiality, and mindful of the emotional impact of such an experience. The journalist's immediate needs include empathy, respect, and security.

Journalists who have been assaulted may consider reporting the attack as a means of obtaining proper medical support and to document the security risk for others. Some journalists told CPJ they were reluctant to report sexual abuse because they did not want to be perceived as being vulnerable while on dangerous assignments.

Editorial managers should create a climate in which journalists can report assaults without fear of losing future assignments and with confidence they will receive support and assistance.

The Committee to Protect Journalists is committed to documenting instances of sexual assault. Journalists are encouraged to contact CPJ to report such cases; information about a case is made public or kept confidential at the discretion of the journalist.

Captive Situations

All over the world journalists are regarded as potentially lucrative abductees by criminal gangs and violent actors.

In Syria and Iraq, the Islamic State has not only used the ransoming of journalists as a major source of funding, but they have also murdered journalists, both local and international. The videotaped killings of James Foley and Steven Sotloff in 2014, after both men were kidnapped and held captive by the Islamic State, cast a spotlight on the dangers of abduction to journalists.

Kidnapping is not a new risk. The kidnapping of journalists for ransom or political gain has occurred frequently since CPJ was founded in 1981. Numerous cases have been reported in nations such as Colombia, the Philippines, Russia, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mexico, and Somalia, according to CPJ research.

The best antidote is precaution. Research extensively the nature and prominence of the threat. Kidnappings can last years before the criminals have extorted all possible money out of the family and loved ones. Even then there is no guarantee that the victims will be returned. Carefully consider how high the threat is, taking into account whether you would want to expose your family to this kind of trauma.

Travel in teams in dangerous areas, making sure that editors and perhaps a trusted local individual know your plans. Use tracking devices to raise the alarm quickly, and prepare a contingency plan with contact information of people and groups to call in the event you go missing.

In advance discussions with editors and trusted contacts, decide the length of time at which they should interpret your being out of touch as an emergency. Consider which individual or group may have leverage over the kidnappers, and try to create a relationship with them before embarking on work in areas where there is a high-risk of kidnapping.

If you’re taken captive, one of the first things a kidnapper may do is research your name on the internet. Everything about you online will be seen by your abductors: where you have worked, the stories you have reported, your education, your personal and professional associations, and possibly the value of your home and your family’s net worth.

You may want to limit the personal details or political leanings you reveal in your online profile. Be prepared to answer tough questions about your family, finances, reporting, and political associations.

Be prepared for your bank accounts and financial savings to be extorted as kidnappers often demand passwords. If possible, give a trusted individual power of attorney over your finances so your accounts can be frozen in an emergency. Formally identifying a family member or an individual who can make decisions for you can avoid stagnation during a crisis.

Hostile environment training includes coping mechanisms and survival techniques. Among them is developing a relationship with your captors, a step that could reduce the chance guards will do you harm. Cooperate with guards but do not attempt to appease them.

As best as you can, explain your role as a non-combatant observer and that your job includes telling all sides of a story. Pace yourself throughout the ordeal and, as much as possible, maintain emotional equanimity. Promises of release may not be forthcoming; threats of execution could be made.

Journalists captured as a group should act in a way that leads guards to keep them together rather than separate them. This could involve cooperating with guards’ orders and persuading captors that it would be less work to keep the group together.

Journalists should offer each other moral and emotional support during captivity. Maintaining cohesion could help each captive’s chances of successful release.

Opportunities for escape may arise during captivity, but many veteran journalists and security experts warn that the chance of success is exceedingly slim and must be balanced against the potentially fatal consequences of failure. In 2009, in Pakistan, New York Times reporter David Rohde and local reporter Tahir Ludin did escape from Taliban captors who had held them for seven months.

After weighing the risks, the two men concluded their captors were not seriously negotiating for their release and chose “to try to make a run for it,” Rohde later wrote. Some captors, however, may have a cohesive chain of command in which you may eventually be allowed to make the case that you are a reporter who deserves to be released.

During a captive situation, editors and family members are encouraged to work together. As soon as the captive situation is confirmed, they should get in touch with government representatives in the hostage nation, along with authorities in the news organization’s home country and that of each of the journalists.

They should seek out advice from diplomats experienced in the theater, private security experts, and press groups such as CPJ. In 2016, CPJ created the Emergencies Response Team, which is able to advise journalists and their families in times of crisis.

Beyond CPJ, the International News Safety Institute has a Global Hostage Crisis Help Centre that can recommend hostage experts. The Dart Center for Journalism & Trauma can advise affected parties on how to obtain counseling for family members and others. (See Chapter 10 Stress Reactions.) Whether to meet captors’ demands is a difficult question. Patience and emotions will be tested as the ordeal goes on.

Editors and relatives should make every effort to present a cohesive front, designating a person as a conduit to authorities and as a public spokesperson. Authorities may well make decisions independent of (and contrary to) the wishes of family and colleagues, but establishing a clear and consistent message to authorities and the press improves the chance of effectively influencing decision-making.

Most governments have stated policies of not paying ransom demands, although in practice a number of governments, including those of France and Japan, have reportedly helped pay ransom in exchange for the release of captive journalists. Editors and family members may or may not be able to influence decisions on the deployment of a government rescue operation.

The American and British governments have a strict policy of non-payment of ransoms to proscribed terrorist groups and, in at least one case, have threatened families with potential prosecution when the question was raised. In Syria, this policy resulted in the death of several journalists, while non-British or American colleagues were freed following a ransom payment.

Kidnappers may try to coerce a news organization into running propaganda or one-sided coverage of their viewpoint. In the 1990s, leftist guerrillas and rightist paramilitaries in Colombia often kidnapped journalists to coerce news outlets into coverage of their political grievances. In 2006, Brazil’s TV Globo aired a homemade video detailing perceived deficiencies in prison conditions after a local criminal gang kidnapped a station reporter and technician.

The two journalists were later freed. Editors need to recognize that acceding to kidnappers’ demands could invite future attempts at coerced coverage.

In another form of coercion, captors may demand that a journalist make propagandistic statements on video. Some journalists have agreed, calculating that it may increase their chances of safe release. Others have resisted in the belief that displaying independence may give them some leverage with their captors.

The decision depends entirely on the circumstances and the individuals involved. John Cantlie, a British journalist who has been held by the Islamic State since 2014, has been forced to make propaganda videos for the group.

Responding to Threats

Threats are not only a tactic designed to intimidate critical journalists; they are often followed by actual attacks. More than one fourth of journalists murdered in the last two decades were threatened beforehand, according to CPJ research. You must take threats seriously, paying particular heed to those that suggest physical violence.

How to respond depends in part on local circumstances. Reporting a threat to police is usually good practice in places with strong rule of law and trustworthy law enforcement. In nations where law enforcement is corrupt, reporting a threat may be futile or even counterproductive. Those factors should be weighed carefully.

Do report threats to your editors and trusted colleagues. Be sure they know details of the threat, including its nature and how and when it was delivered. Some journalists have publicized threats through their news outlets or their own blogs.

And do report threats to local and international press freedom groups such as the Committee to Protect Journalists. CPJ will publicize a threat or keep it confidential at your discretion. Many journalists have told CPJ that publicizing threats helped protect them from harm.

Journalists under threat can also consider a temporary or permanent change in beat. Editors should consult closely with a journalist facing threats and expedite a change in assignment if requested for safety reasons. Some threatened journalists have found that time away from a sensitive beat allowed a hostile situation to lessen in intensity.

In severe circumstances, journalists may consider relocation either within or outside their country. Threatened journalists should consult with their loved ones to assess potential relocation, and seek help from their news organization and professional groups if relocation is deemed necessary.

The Colombian investigative editor Daniel Coronell and his family, for example, relocated to the United States for two years beginning in 2005 after he faced a series of threats, including the delivery of a funeral wreath to his home.

Coronell resumed his investigative work when he returned to Colombia, and although threats continued, they came at a slower pace and with lesser intensity. CPJ can provide advice to journalists under threat and, in some cases, direct support such as relocation assistance.


___________

I have traveled abroad. The most alarming was when in UAE a very prominent business man said he wanted to spirit me off to Yemen to assist with the building of terrorist devices for their "cause". He was a Lebanese working in Abu Dhabi, who was secretly fighting the establishment in UAE, and Israel. He eventually tried to murder me with a dose of biological nCOV MERS virus..

Of course being told to travel to the Delta state region in Nigeria was most interesting too.

When dealing in a hostile situation, keep your wits, and nobody is your friend.. Keep that in mind.

[Bob]

So you are going to whistle-blow what you found out and get that scoop before AP hits the wires with it..

Be realistic about your physical and emotional limitations. It might be useful to consider in advance all the individuals who would be affected if you were, say, disabled or killed. Consider as well the emotional toll of continuing to report stressful stories one after another. At some point, one more crime victim, one more corpse, one more grieving family may be too much. A decision not to report a story should be seen as a sign of maturity, not as a source of shame or stigma.

News managers should regard the safety of field journalists as the primary consideration in making an assignment. They should not penalize a journalist for turning down an assignment based on the potential risk. News organizations should recognize their responsibilities to support all field journalists, whether they are staff members or stringers.

Editors need to be frank about the specific support their organization is willing to provide, including health or life insurance or emotional counseling. Matters left unresolved before a journalist begins a story can lead to stressful complications later.

Did you take a serious look and do a RISK ASSESSMENT?

Always prepare a security assessment in advance of a potentially dangerous assignment. The plan should identify contact people and the time and means of communication; describe all known hazards, including the history of problems in the reporting area; and outline contingency plans that address the perceived risks.

Diverse sources should be consulted, including journalists with experience in the location or topic, diplomatic advisories, reports on press freedom and human rights, and academic research.

Editors working with staffers or freelancers should have substantial input into the assessment, take the initiative in raising security questions, and receive a copy of the assessment. An independent journalist working without a relationship with a news organization must be especially rigorous in compiling a security assessment, consulting with peers, researching the risks, and arranging a contact network. An example of a security assessment form is available for download here and for review in Appendix G.

Risks should be reassessed on a frequent basis as conditions change. “Always, constantly, constantly, every minute, weigh the benefits against the risks. And as soon as you come to the point where you feel uncomfortable with that equation, get out, go, leave.

It's not worth it,” Terry Anderson, the former Associated Press Middle East correspondent who was held hostage in Beirut for nearly seven years, wrote in CPJ’s first journalist security guide, published in March 1993.

“There is no story worth getting killed for.”

KEEP that in MIND very clearly...

Risks to be identified may include:

• If operating in a conflict zone, battlefield hazards, such as small arms fire, aerial bombardment, artillery, landmines, booby traps and unexploded ordnance;
  
• In many parts of the world, terrorist attacks such as suicide bombs, gunmen, knife attack, vehicular attacks and sieges- journalists for ransom or for political objectives;
• Crowd disorder issues, including tear gas, missiles, rubber bullets, kettling, assault from the crowd and sexual assault;
• Criminal risk, from petty crime to violent assault;
• Digital security, including safety of data and protection of sources;
• Government or non-state actor intimidation to silence;
• Long term threats to oneself, sources, contributors as well as your local staff (fixers/drivers);
• Environmental and health issues from natural disasters to vaccination requirements.

The risk assessment must also consider the possibility that any circumstance—from a tense political situation to a natural disaster—can escalate in severity. The assessment should include information on where to stay and where to seek refuge if necessary; where and how to get updated information inside the country; whether equipment such as a weather-band or shortwave radio is needed; whom to contact in the country, from local human rights groups to foreign embassies, for emergency information; travel plans and methods within the country; and multiple entry and exit routes.

It is particularly important to consider the state of local hospitals and know the best ones to use in case of an emergency. This information must be included in the risk assessment. It is also useful to identify your insurance provider’s medical evacuation procedures. Always take a medical kit and detail the medical training of those deploying.

In the assessment, outline a check-in procedure with editors, colleagues, and loved ones outside the area of risk. You and the contact people should decide in advance how frequently you wish to communicate, by what means, and at what prescribed time, and whether you need to take precautions to avoid having your communications intercepted.

Most important, you and the contact person must decide in advance at exactly what point a failure to check in is considered an emergency and whom to call for a comprehensive response in locating you and securing your exit or release.

The response often entails systematically reaching out to colleagues and friends who can assess the situation, to authorities who can investigate, and to the diplomatic community to provide potential support and leverage.

The assessment should address the communications infrastructure in the reporting area, identifying any contingency equipment you may need. Are electricity, Internet access, and mobile and landline phone service available? Are they likely to remain so? Is a generator or a car battery with a DC adaptor needed to power one’s computer?

Should a satellite phone be used? In remote locations or high risk situations, satellite and GSM tracking devices should also be considered. They offer a way to raise the alarm quickly. Ensure that those monitoring your communications are up to the task and dedicated.

Any risk assessment should consider your desired profile. Do you want to travel in a vehicle marked “Press” or “TV,” or would it be better to blend in with other civilians? Should you avoid working alone and instead team up with others? If you travel with others, choose your companions carefully.

You may not wish to travel, for example, with someone who has a very different attitude and tolerance for risk.

[Valerie Villars]

Thank you Bob. You are a jewel. You were wistfully mentioned by more than one person in Laughlin, who was really wishing you had come.

Your last line about hostile situations made me think that perhaps we are ALL in a hostile situation here.

[Bob]

The one's skilled in psychological operations..

You know you are right, but they know that you have a vulnerability - you care, that is the button they will use on you.

First you are given a presentation that everything is all love and light (other schools of thought call this the coffee and light trip)..

Then you are given a contradiction that you are seeing nothing that is coffee and light - quite the contrary, the presentation you are receiving being rammed down your throat that you must sit still for and take is narcissistic, condescending to your intelligence, and hardly about a sharing of information with those folks you have come to interview.

Then phase 2 hits - you are subjected to personnel that prove you are mentally ill and in need of fixing. You have been subjected to a psychological operation.

I found this in Egypt in 1987 when I met various people who were above board telling me it was all love and light there, that everyone was seeking peace and harmony - it was quite the contrary..

Here is some data below about understanding how psyops is used on journalists:

And you thought it was just you ! They turn the tables on you so that you question yourself and those about you. Do you know what is real any more?



Journalists are as vulnerable to psychological trauma as they are to physical and digital threats.

Approaching these threats holistically and preparing accordingly not only enhances your overall safety, but helps to protect your colleagues and sources.

UNDERSTAND WHAT TRAUMA IS, either physical or mental

• Trauma occurs when a person has a physical or mental reaction to a stressful event that affects their sympathetic nervous system--the fight-or-flight response--and parasympathetic nervous system, which relaxes the body.
• Trauma affects a person the same way that a toxin might. Reactions can depend on the intensity, duration, and frequency of exposure to stressful events.

Know the warning signs:

• Difficulties concentrating.
• Unusual irritability or short temper.
• Images or thoughts related to a project intruding at unwanted times.
• Unusual isolation or withdrawal from peer groups or social situations.
• Disruption of sleep.
• Increase in self-medication. (Alcohol, beer, cigarettes, pot, drugs are all self medications).

Develop tools and resources to help you cope:

Maintain social connections.

Running away into isolation solves nothing - the programming festers.

Consider that you were deliberately triggered. Consider that you were vulnerable and accidentally triggered. Be OBJECTIVE.

Explore strategies for implementing self-care and resilience:

• Develop a positive view of yourself and confidence in your strengths and abilities.
• Work on skills in communication and problem solving.
• Work on your capacity to manage strong feelings and impulses.
• Learn from past experiences.
• Stay flexible.
• Identify where to look for help.

Beware of FAKE HELP claiming to rid you of your problems. Those who are claiming that may have very well been at least partially responsible for pushing you in to psychological trauma.

[Valerie Villars]

I remember reading that writers have a higher than the normal percentage of "bi-polar" diagnosis by the psychiatric community.

[Denise/Dizi]

Well said Bob! I am keeping ALL OF THIS.. I doubt I will ever become a journalist, but this information does also share some practical measures that people could establish in their own lives, when dealing with others. And their confidences and commitments to said things. It also gives some great suggestions about how to remain SAFE... and a whole host of other good advice.

Thank You!

[Bob]

As Denise and Val pointed out - it can be anywhere that we are "reporting" on what we have observed.

One really big issue is IF WE HAVE BEEN TOLD that what we are about to hear is SECRET and that we must KEEP A SECRET..

That specific "must keep a secret" induces a very nasty psychological trauma in the persons, especially if they feel they have been elevated to "elite status" by having received the secret.

Take for instance a reporter has an interview with a head of state, lets say a prime minister, or maybe some sheikh from an Arab country and one has been told something about the insider news about the scuttlebutt of the "officials" in this or that city being corrupt and receiving bribes...

What does one do? Publish, that "unknown sources have revealed such and such dirt?"

The amount of psychological trauma that is induced by being told that "This information is for your ears (and eyes) only" is tantamount to a psyops..

Nasty stuff when subjected to it..

From the National Recon Office, their patch - wanna have a cobra in your midst? Snakes'R_Us ?

Of course getting a Mongoose in to clear out the snakes is a very wise and appropriate move, well done.. it does take some skill to do it properly and elegantly.. well done..

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=OyuIAUlL5IU

[Valerie Villars]

Thanks Bob. I guess I have a big mouth and can't keep a secret.

[Praxis]

Posted by Bob (here)
As Denise and Val pointed out - it can be anywhere that we are "reporting" on what we have observed.

One really big issue is IF WE HAVE BEEN TOLD that what we are about to hear is SECRET and that we must KEEP A SECRET..

That specific "must keep a secret" induces a very nasty psychological trauma in the persons, especially if they feel they have been elevated to "elite status" by having received the secret.

Take for instance a reporter has an interview with a head of state, lets say a prime minister, or maybe some sheikh from an Arab country and one has been told something about the insider news about the scuttlebutt of the "officials" in this or that city being corrupt and receiving bribes...

What does one do? Publish, that "unknown sources have revealed such and such dirt?"

The amount of psychological trauma that is induced by being told that "This information is for your ears (and eyes) only" is tantamount to a psyops..

Nasty stuff when subjected to it..

From the National Recon Office, their patch - wanna have a cobra in your midst? Snakes'R_Us ?

Of course getting a Mongoose in to clear out the snakes is a very wise and appropriate move, well done.. it does take some skill to do it properly and elegantly.. well done..

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=OyuIAUlL5IU

Hey Bob,

I was wondering if I might ask where you found that patch? I am in the process of making diagram of various organizations and I have never seen that particular patch.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...issance_Office

If you look at the image gallery, those are the ones I am familiar with. Where did you find it?

When I google the latin, which means Never before and Never Again, I found this site http://whale.to/c/national_reconnaissance_office.html

Do you happen to know the providence of that patch?

[ramus]

Bob it's journalism to post your links to this ....

https://cpj.org/reports/2012/04/asse...ng-to-risk.php

[Bob]

The conflict within a Journalist - the damage of keeping the secret, "secret".

The job is to reveal and bring forth discoveries to the public, or at least to the Editor who will then decide if the material is worthy for publication.

- however, one's psychological health is continually being challenged by being in that position, having received data that is privy.

There are numerous studies and articles about the psychological damage that happens when being forced to receive a secret. Diving in oneself to obtain "secrets" may seem rewarding, but when it is forced unexpectedly, uncertainty about what to do in the minimum and extreme stress can be the result.

Here is an article that goes over some of these points in detail:

Keeping a secret given to one by a trusted source can take a terrible physical and mental toll.

It all depends on the secret. And in this case, it actually probably could. Over several decades, Daniel Wegner, of white bear fame, has been exploring the cognitive consequences of secrecy; and what he has found is not good news for would-be secret keepers.

In a series of studies in the 1990s, Wegner and colleagues found that secret thoughts not only functioned in a way that was similar to suppressed thoughts, suggesting the same cognitive mechanism underlying the two, but that they were more accessible—in other words, people more easily recalled memories that they had been asked to keep secret than memories that they had told the truth or lied about—and came to mind much more often (and more often unintentionally) than any other thoughts (so, we tend to think more often of things that we’ve kept secret, such as telling a lie, masturbating, or having a crush on someone, than we do of things we haven’t, such as losing keys or getting bitten by a dog).

Put simply, our secrets preoccupy us. The more we try to keep them at bay, the more they rise up in our minds. The more we try to fight back, the more likely we are to slip up—in another study, Wegner found that people were much more likely to give an experimenter unintentional hints about something they were supposed to keep secret than they were to say something about a word, phrase, or image that they thought the experiment knew as well; and then, they were more likely to over-compensate and give themselves away even further—and the more taxing the effort will be on our minds. In fact, Wegner does Freud (as firm an adherent of the secret-as-enemy school of thought as ever there was) one better, showing that not only do personal secrets result in outward signs of distress or trauma, but that secrecy can itself create further unwanted thoughts, further exacerbating the cycle. And personal secrets, like a stigma that can be hidden? The effects get worse quickly, getting so bad as to be termed a private hell for the secret-keeper: the more personal and personally revealing a topic, the harder the effects of keeping it hidden will strike.

Arthur Dimmesdale is certainly not alone in seeing the pernicious effects of his secret eating away at him over many years. The mechanism’s effects play out far beyond the laboratory. Numerous researchers have demonstrated that keeping family secrets, such as abuse or parentage, often results in dysfunctional households—and that keeping personal secrets related to traumatic experiences is a frequent cause of psychological and physical health problems. In fact, Holocaust victims who talked about memories that they had long kept to themselves showed a marked improvement in health 14 months after the interview—and the more they disclosed, the more they improved.

Indeed, a secret that seemed small and inconsequential when you decided to keep it can take on a life of its own if you let it fester unattended. How many times have you not told someone something because it didn’t seem like the right time, only to find it harder and harder to say it—and to find yourself obsessing over why you didn’t, whether you should, what it all means, and on and on? Break the cycle, and you’re well on your way to freeing your mind. Only the cycle can be a tough one to break.

There’s certainly a time and a place for secrets. But before you agree to keep one for someone else—or before you decide to do something that would require you to keep one of your own—think twice. The act may be long since done, but the consequences of secrecy will remain. Just consider the fates of the two principal actors in The Scarlet Letter: at the end, it was the one who had never experienced public stigma who suffered the most. The truth often hurts, no question about it. But so does not telling it.

The psychological trauma of keeping it in when one's job says to find the secret and reveal it..

THE ROLE OF JOURNALISTS is to make information public. The irony is that in order to do so, they need to keep lots of things secrets.

They do that in all sorts of ways. Sometimes journalists promise anonymity in order to get officials to divulge what they’re not supposed to reveal. Sometimes they cloak the exchange of sensitive documents. Sometimes they conceal the nature of their stories so that governments can’t censor their work preemptively.

What news organizations don’t worry enough about is keeping the identity of their readers secret.

In an era when electronic spycraft is rampant, people who go to a website looking for news can unwittingly endanger themselves just by clicking on a story or video.

Governments that know who is accessing specific information can intrude in a variety of ways–by blocking or censoring the story or by targeting individuals who access prohibited information for harassment or even legal action.

Most stories about the effort are framed as a struggle between two competing interests–the law enforcement and intelligence agencies trying to prevent terror attacks on one side, and on the other technology companies and advocacy groups seeking to protect individual privacy.

Certainly, journalists should present both sides but they should also recognize their own stake in the outcome. Encrypting the web means deploying software to make the information exchanged between websites (including basics like email) indecipherable to prying eyes.

Fabrication, confabulation, lies and secrets -

Sometimes a reporter/journalist is told a series of LIES, or creations by somebody.

Unbeknownst to the receiver of the "information", they could actually start to create a fabrication, or a disinformation. In the minimum without checking all the references, all the information, one ends up spreading the "creative concoction" which could theoretically discredit the news Agency and the reporter/journalist. What does the journalist do when he or she has discovered that the "secret" really was a fabrication, or lie? Publish a retraction or correction? An honest news agency or journalist would do that in all conscious representations..

How reputable and how honest such organization are has to be determined using observations of track record, are other journalists giving the other reporters "compliments" for accuracy in reporting, or quality journalism?

The balance then comes not from blind "trusting", but looking for the references, looking for the history of accuracy in finding truth, then weighing if presenting the "truth" would result in people becoming healed, helped, well, or if the presentation is a misrepresentation or dis-information ultimately designed to kill, sabotage, or dissuade people from looking in certain corners.

A trusted source for "news" has a lot to take into account. From the health and well being of it's "journalists" to the health and well being of the organization to the health and well being of the readers.. Keeping secrets may seem like a good idea, but it is a very sticky web. At the start, the one's first "given the secret" are put into a stress and possibly a false sense of belief that they are now the "special keepers of the 'truth' ".. And if they are not skilled psychologically able to deal with "data manipulation" they may cave in.

There is an argument that State Secrets outweigh any perceived "rights" that journalists feel they are entitled to. The press can be a flawed judge of what is in the public interest. It is no better at separating itself from its own interests than anybody else is, and unlike the organs of government, which are accountable to the public and each other, the press is accountable to no one.

Is there a right to know?

Would you want the "secret" recipe to making a deadly virus placed on the internet, wiki-leaked? Along with the list of where to buy the ingredients, the procedures to make and the techniques of distribution? That would be irresponsible, unethical, and illegal (in that order?)

Various groups keep secrets because it would be unwise to let certain data to become publicly known. Would you want your bank account, identification, passwords all published? There are criminals who do that, and attempt to extort people that they have stolen from or "bought secrets" from.

The understanding of what stress levels are involved in keeping a secret that is of "no consequence" or being forced into receiving a "secret" that you didn't ask for or expect nor agreed to assume responsibility to "keep it secret" needs to be looked it. If you agreed under extreme penalties for indiscreet release and then you violated that TRUST/CONTRACT/AGREEMENT one would be considered untrustworthy in the minimum and legally liable for damages in the other extent. Some military secrets being divulged may mean the death penalty is the result. Sometimes just a slap on the hand happens.

One not BOUND to keep secrets secret, that is the question to be solved.

[Bob]

Posted by ramus (here)
Bob it's journalism to post your links to this ....

https://cpj.org/reports/2012/04/asse...ng-to-risk.php

I wait till I am done with a long series of datum sometimes a couple 10's if not hundreds of posts and then cite numerous lists if applicable of supporting data for more information.

CPJ is indeed mentioned in the OP and there is no difficulty going to their webpages which ARE extensive.

international press freedom groups such as the Committee to Protect Journalists. CPJ will publicize a threat or keep it confidential at your discretion. Many journalists have told CPJ that publicizing threats helped protect them from harm.

Sorting through them and coming up with the proper material that is relevant was accomplished.

Putting in clickable links is arbitrary and a choice of the poster and is simply a convenience for those who want ease of browsing.

Here's some more organizations if anyone needs them:

• Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
• Freedom House
• Front Line Defenders (FLD)
• International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)
• International Media Support (IMS)
• Kality Foundation
• PEN America
• Reporters Without Borders (RSF)

[Bob]

@Praxis - "US Air Force Groom NRO Snakes National Reconnaissance Office Hook Patch Embroidy", Groom lake psyops mission patch - https://www.pinterest.com/pin/46091596159666075/ and Military black project mission patch from the book, "I Could Tell You But Then You Would Have to Be Destroyed by Me", by Trevor Paglen. Upside down stars, serpents.

This is an interesting one too:

USA-247, also known as NRO Launch 39 or NROL-39, is an American reconnaissance satellite, operated by the National Reconnaissance Office. The USA-247 launch received a relatively high level of press coverage due to the mission's choice of logo, which depicts an octopus sitting astride the globe with the motto "Nothing Is Beyond Our Reach". The logo was extensively criticized in light of the 2013 surveillance disclosures.

[Bob]

Turning in your source - are you a "fink" a "rat" a snitch or simply using good conscience.. ??

So your hear that your boss is a pedophile. He pays your bills, you are a journalist, respected, with awards, for working for a prestigious organization, and one day you uncover something very unsavory about your boss. What do you do?

You know you like being paid, that your family likes the fancy house in LA that you know if you reveal what you found out, you will be canned and your boss will deny everything and most likely create a nuisance law suit.

You see the films recorded secretly in his office by a colleague. And your colleague says shall we black mail him?

What do you do?

[Valerie Villars]

Well, I called the FBI.

And you do pay for that. It's no fun being poor. But, I'd rather be poor than be a liar by being less than honest.

For the record I never revealed the source, only the culprit. And there was never any stipulation by the source about "keeping a secret".

[Bob]

Posted by Valerie Villars (here)
Well, I called the FBI.

And you do pay for that. It's no fun being poor. But, I'd rather be poor than be a liar by being less than honest.

For the record I never revealed the source, only the culprit. And there was never any stipulation by the source about "keeping a secret".

I debated Val, if the FBI was the right contact to deal with the Abu Dhabi terrorist group. One most certainly doesn't expect that because of one's technical skills that one would be told that you don't leave there alive unless you cooperate.. I did spirit out a message to the States via my smartphone, which no doubt was intercepted by their security services, that I will NOT put up with being held hostage in Abu Dhabi or Yemen, and that they could take their smartbombs and put it where the light doesn't shine. Never had an interview with the FBI for that trip in the States.. Not that it would have accomplished anything. The businessman still operates their construction firm, still does 'deals' with the government in Abu Dhabi, which leads me to believe that the government officials are culpable to the terrorist racket against Israel. I assume Mossad just lets them get away with it too.. Sad but that is politics apparently, who pays off whom.

[ramus]

Still wating for the links to this information,

bob:
"Putting in clickable links is arbitrary and a choice of the poster and is simply a convenience for those who want ease of browsing".

Thank you for your generosity.. but it is custom here to post the link and yes it is a convenience and a courtesy, try it sometime.

[Bob]

Please stop being rude Ramus - you were answered in post 12 above.

[Bob]

Press Freedom - freedom of what, for what, and because of a belief of a "need to know"? It comes back down to secrets.

Why are secrets kept?

One party believes the other party that wants to know isn't entitled for any reason what-so-ever.

Be it, that it is "none of their business to pry", to "we will not be badgered by anyone to jump through their hoops demanding this or that be turned over to them".

In some countries, it is illegal to speak anything bad or detrimental about "dear leader", to do so can result in the death penalty being imparted, or the person tortured.

In some countries, there is a "freedom of speech" concept that one should be allowed to talk unhindered - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.." And then we see that challenged or "interpreted".. That the hindering comes from the challenges about what means "abridged", or should free speech be muzzled with government or military secrets are about to be revealed.

There is the espionage acts - in the US under President Wilson it was recognized in 1917 that in certain circumstances, it will become illegal for anyone to give anyone (including publishing, speaking to foreigners about such State or Military matters), intended to interfere with the U.S. armed forces prosecution of the war effort or to promote the success of the country’s enemies. Anyone found guilty of such acts would be subject to a fine of $10,000 and a prison sentence of 20 years.

The Espionage Act was reinforced by the "Sedition Act " of 1918, which imposed similarly harsh penalties on anyone found guilty of making false statements that interfered with the prosecution of the war; insulting or abusing the U.S. government, the flag, the Constitution or the military; agitating against the production of necessary war materials; or advocating, teaching or defending any of these acts.

One could be guilty of Sedition by insulting or abusing the US Government. Or the Constitution or the Military - OR rabble rousing for instance to prevent materials needed for the War Effort from being manufactured, or distributed to the Military. One who TEACHES or ADVOCATES how to do such things then can be subjected to SEDITION.

Freedom of Speech does not protect one then when active acts of sedition or Espionage happens, no matter what method one uses then to mask or hide one's identity, one if guilty of the actions are then able to be prosecuted by the government. In 1921 Congress took the Sedition Act off the books in light of the Socialist movement starting to infiltrate American politics. (see Marxists dot org "history" for the 1922 timetable).

During the 1940's through the 1950's US senator Joe McCarthy along with his right hand man, J. Edgar Hoover, used the Espionage and concepts behind the original Sedition act as the legal authority and principles used to go after and prosecute those who were considered "activists" from the Left.

Eugene V. Debs, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for a speech he made in 1918 in Canton, Ohio, criticizing the Espionage Act. Debs appealed the decision, and the case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where the court upheld his conviction.

Though Debs’ sentence was commuted in 1921 when the Sedition Act was repealed by Congress, major portions of the Espionage Act remain part of United States law to the present day.

The idea of preventing Sedition happened as early as 1798 and was signed into law by President Adams. The Federalist party of the time feared that foreigners (illegal aliens) would side with the French during the war. It was anticipated that America would be called to War with France, and even foreign born "Americans" may side with the potential new "enemy". Speech would be limited to all that they must not speak in any detrimental way against the Government or its policies.

These laws raised the residency requirements for citizenship from 5 to 14 years, authorized the President to deport aliens, and permitted their arrest, imprisonment, and deportation during wartime. The Sedition Act made it a crime for American citizens to "print, utter, or publish any false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the Government.

Dealing with "sedition" goes back a long way in the US history.

[ramus]

.... accuse other of what you do ....gaslighting ... Accusing you of their own behavior is a classic tactic of gaslighters. Gaslighters, people who try to control others through manipulation, will often accuse you of behaviors that they are engaged in themselves. This is a classic manipulation tactic.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...ou-gaslighting