BOB GARFIELD: As the military operation in Iraq drags on into the new year, reports of downed helicopters and deadly car bombs are becoming sickeningly routine, and the journalists who keep us informed as to every gruesome detail of the carnage are not immune to the dangers either. Their death toll stands at 13. At a broadcast journalist's conference last November, the question was raised as to whether news organizations should employ armed guards in war zones. No consensus was reached, but one participant complained that those who do hire guards are, quote, "making a decision that affects all of us," blurring the line between reporters and combatants, and making reporters fair game for hostile forces. Newsweek reporter Christopher Dickey in his most recent column said that he won't be carrying a gun into journalistic action, but he may be carrying an unfortunate new formula for calculating risk. Chris, welcome to On the Media.

CHRISTOPHER DICKEY: It's my pleasure, Bob.

BOB GARFIELD:So soon you'll be headed back to Iraq, and you've written a fascinating exploration into your own soul on the question of whether to go back to Baghdad bearing arms. What prompted this little bit of introspection.

CHRISTOPHER DICKEY:What prompted that column was a story about Dexter Filkins of the New York Times. He and a couple of photographers were set upon by a mob and had to really flee for their lives, and Dexter started thinking, you know, maybe if he'd had a gun to wave at them he would have been better off. I, I think that's a very foolish judgment. I think he did the right thing. He ran. To wave a gun is usually the absolute worst thing you can do in a situation like that.

BOB GARFIELD:Well, forgetting for a moment whether that would just further incite the crowds, it clearly changes the relationship between the journalist and the potential interviewee.

CHRISTOPHER DICKEY:Well, carrying the gun changes it completely. Soldiers, I suppose, have no choice. We do have a choice, as journalists, and we can't be in a position where the people we are going to saying "tell us about your life, tell us how you feel, tell us about your politics, tell us about the death of your father or brother or sister," and be standing there wearing body armor, a helmet and carrying a pistol or a Kalashnikov. That puts you in a whole different category than the people you're talking to, and professionally, you just never want to do that if you can avoid it.

BOB GARFIELD:You're not even certain, I gather from your column, that you're going to wear a bullet proof vest or go accompanied by bodyguards on your journalistic errands.

CHRISTOPHER DICKEY:We always have bullet proof vests with us when we drive around in Baghdad or outside, but I for one don't wear one unless there's actually a situation where bullets are flying around. If you wear a vest, you might as well just say "Here I am, an alien presence in your country. Please take a closer look at me, and if you get a chance, take a shot." As far as bodyguards are concerned, there is a considerable industry in Iraq of American, British, Australian bodyguards who are paid more than a thousand dollars a day per person. Most of these guys don't speak Arabic, and most of these guys are trained for combat situations. They're not necessarily very good at defusing situations. So I would be reluctant to have any of these guys trailing around with me. The, the main thing you want to try and do is be as inconspicuous as possible.

BOB GARFIELD:Now the question of to pack "heat" or not to pack "heat" is interesting in and of itself, but in your piece you actually use the issue as a sort of Trojan horse for the larger question which is, is it really worth covering this war with all its dangers for an American public that you believe is increasingly losing interest?

CHRISTOPHER DICKEY:The American public is losing interest. I don't think there's any doubt about that. You can see that as Americans are more and more wrapped up in the election campaign. The issue of Iraq will be important, but the specifics of what's happening in Iraq, unless something really extremely dire happens, is not going to be terribly important. So what happens for the journalist on the ground is you've got to make a judgment -- is it worth taking the risk and very possibly getting shot at, very possibly getting killed for stories that may be of marginal interest to the people back home. Eventually what happens, and we've seen this in many, many other places -- in Lebanon, to some extent even in Vietnam at some points --is that the stories just don't get covered. And what you're going to have is a constant spin by the Bush administration to try and say "Problem solved. Saddam is captured. Things are improving. Trend lines are good." You have an example of that just this week. You saw reports that said the number of attacks on Americans are down 22 percent in the four weeks after Saddam's capture, as compared to the four weeks before. But that same story, if you read much further down, will show you that the number of Americans killed has actually risen dramatically up 40 percent in the last four weeks -- that the number of wounded is virtually the same -- and that what all this bespeaks is more efficiency on the part of the insurgency, not a decline in the rebel movement against the U.S. presence.

BOB GARFIELD: Well, Chris, thank you.

CHRISTOPHER DICKEY: Well, thank you, Bob.

BOB GARFIELD: Christopher Dickey is a correspondent for Newsweek magazine based in Paris. He returns to Iraq in ten days time. [MUSIC]

BOB GARFIELD: Coming up, the evolution of the independent film festival from indiefest to indiewood. This is On the Media, from NPR. [FUNDING CREDITS]

copyright 2004 WNYC Radio