It is folk lore. It is also the sad, bitter truth. Bringers of bad news either get fired - in the corporate world,- or shot, on the battlefield.

It is also a sad reality, that bad news sells. On the front page of your rag of choice -what do you find? Usually gloom-and-doom dominates, feel-good is left for the Pollyanna stories in the lifestyle section.

An interesting dilemma is cropping up for those responsible for reporting on the events that are deemed significant We already are aware that war-time reporting is dangerous - think of Daniel Pearl, or the numerous men and women who have lost their lives in search of their Pulitzers, from Afghanistan to Chechenya to Vietnam. Now though journalists may be expected to not only write and file their stories but even appear in court.

The Court in question is the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). The pressing conern is should a reporter be compelled to testify at international war crimes tribunals. The American government and the powerful US media have been arguing against any Americans subject to investigation for war crimes of their own.

Washington Post’s veteran war reporter -69 year old Jonathan Randal is very much in the klieg lights at the moment. He refused to testify earlier this year at the tribunal that is trying strong-man and dictator Slobodan Milosevic and his various cronies.

Randal is being supported by the international media watchdog Reporters Sans Frontieres (Reporters Without Borders. Robert Menard, the head of RSF fears that a bad precedent would be set should Randal be forced to testify. Menard points out that any investigative reporter, war correspondent, media worker who has to fear testifying will never be able to get information from any source.

The 64 dollar question does have to do with trust. Although far too many public figures speak off the record, it is understandable that they have the right to do so. Particularily if they are working in a military situation, where one dead reporter more or less does not concern authorities such as Milosevic. Have people truly forgotten the mass graves, the atrocities uncovererd in the former Yugoslavia?

Its not just ICTY - journalists have gone on strike in Albania and Greece recently, arguing that those countries are unable to provide protection for them. In Russia, Ukraine and Belarus journalist have gone missing, been arrested and charged for writing seditious pieces.

Freedom of the Press is a precious thing. Randal’s argument is that his very professional livelihood would be threatened by having to testify. A journalist’s ability to collect information in difficult situations - such as on a battlefield, during a war depends on the source trusting the correspondent. Impartiality is also critical - may also keep a journalist alive. Giving evidence in court against onetime battlefield sources sure is not the way to earn confidence.

In the case of Randal he was called to testify against Bosnian Serb and former deputy Prime Minister radoslav Brdjanin and former army chief Momir Talc. The pair are accused of the persecution and expulsion of more than 100,000 non-Serbs from northwestern Bosnia in the 1992-95 wast. Randal published an interview in the Washington Post, in 1993, with Brdjanin, in which the latter advocated the expulsion of non-Serbs. Randal argues that being forced to testify is uneccesary - all facts as he received in the interview were transcribed in thre story. A copy of which is readily available to the tribunal.

Not all journalists feel as strongly as Randal - two Brits, Jacky Rowland and Jeremy Bowen of the BBC have testified in court against accused war criminals, indicating that that is hardly more dangerous than being on the front lines, where a camera or tape recorder would place them in immediate jeopardy.

For Randal the price may be high, for taking an understandable clear position. If convicted of contempt he could be imprisoned for up to seven years, at the very least fined, - up to 100,000 euros according to the Hague. Seems absurd in the very least - while Slobo is living a comfortable existence because of the fact that the lengthy judicial process has not been completed, a veteran reporter could be incarcerated for merely doing his job - telling the news.

Fortunately 34 major media groups including CNN, the New York Times and the BBC have taken up Randal’s cause. Acting as friends of the court - amici curiae - the coalition has presented arguments to the ICTY to overturn the order to testify. They are pointing out that the defense lawyers are not forced to betray confidentiality by testifying - and neither are Red Cross officials and interpreters.

It is not like there is anything in doubt - that is the very reason for the existence of the Hague tribunal. While Milkosevic and his ilk have the right to defend themselves, Randal does not.

As a last point, Randal is American, and America military at present is not compelled to testify. The power of the pen might be greater than that of the sword, but that remains to be seen. Hardly a tempest in a teapot, Randal’s fate has long-lasting ramifications to the Freedom of the Press, be it in Bosnia or in the USA.

Märkmed: