Tyson and Chandrasekaran were both frank about the limitations of trying to speak to Iraqis or Afghans from within a military embed (hopping out of a military vehicle and surrounded by large men with guns is not always the best way to strike up a conversation — through a translator — with locals). The U.S. military’s decision to shift to a population-centric COIN strategy created more and better opportunities for such contacts, intriguingly. Both mentioned the great value of stringers, Iraqis who could get out into their communities, and who help constitute an effective overall team. Such use of stringers is essential but raises its own problems, of course – including, not least, their own safety. I pointed out my dismay at the number of books about Iraq written by even very good journalists which fail to quote or take heed of Iraqis themselves. Anthony Shadid was brought up several times as an exception, but what makes Shadid exceptional is that he is, in fact, exceptional in this regard both in terms of his Arabic language and his access (ditto Nir Rosen and a few others).
As I mentioned earlier this month when reflecting on some work I did in Garissa, Kenya’s North Eastern Province, the use of stringers seems like an increasingly appealing option for gathering news for an international audience. As a White female foreigner and Westerner, Somali men were not interested in sharing their difficulties as honestly or as readily as they might have with a Somali reporter writing for both local and international press. In the long-run, stringers seem to a more fair and sustainable option. Building capacity of local reporters to file internationally, while cutting costs. The big clincher, of course, is how to protect stringers and give them due credit.
Also – are there experiences where stringers have community/family allegiances that compromise their work. Thoughts?
