you read the whole post. Here are some good questions.
So, two main issues remain even after we hear Naikzad's version of
events.
1) Do journalists have a moral responsibility that trumps whatever
ethical standards they learned in journalism school to try and prevent
heinous crimes that puts life or limb in jeopardy? I think yes. And if
the AP had prior knowledge that these crimes were about to be
committed then they had a moral (and perhaps legal) responsibility
to notify those with the power to stop them. In this case probably
NATO.
2) Do journalists have an allegiance to their home country in times of
war that transcends the normal peace time journalistic ethic of "neutrality"?
Again, I think yes. I do not necessarily think that journalists shouldn't try
to understand why our enemies do the things they do. But note that they
are our enemies, journalists included.