Since 1992, 801 journalists have been killed around the globe. To understand how high this death rate is consider that just over 1000 pugilists have died in the history of boxing. (Now, you could argue that wars kill journalists not the profession whereas boxing is an equal threat to all its participants – but that would be missing the point I’m yet to make.)

Can the death rate among journalists be a good measure of evil?

I’ve always found it peculiar that a journalist killed in action guarantees a news-story. It’s either a great way to show how dire a situation is or, it’s a show of how hacks, as an interest group, are able to bring attention to their plight. I wonder what the ratio of news-stories to deaths is among different interest groups? Celebrities are 1:1, I know that much.

But when a celebrity dies you can’t infer anything about the world, except maybe that use of sleeping pills is increasing. One civilian death is not telling. 10 civilians in one instance sounds like a massacre; 100-200 sounds like a plane crash. But, there is something special about one journalist. If a journalist dies, it signals that something went wrong in the system. I always imagine they are revealing Kim Jong Il’s darkest secrets or are about to out a corrupt politician. (Consider the two said examples to be different where Kim Jong Il is more a deity than corrupt politician.)

We assume that journalists have an immunity to death like medical personnel or Cher. They get a badge. They get security and transportation. They get a lenience un-afforded to civilians, especially in war zones. So, when one dies we are that much more convinced that evil abounds – that freedom is threatened. (A recent transplant to the United States, I’ve learnt how to judge everything by how free it is.)

In this sense, hack deaths are a meaningful lens. Definitely check out both the Committee to Protect Journalists and the Reporters Without Borders internets-websites. The Philippines, interestingly, is the second most dangerous destination for journalists. I’m unaware of major wars in the area in the last 10 years (mind you, I’m largely ignorant of civil unrest as well) but I wonder why the Philippines and not, say, Iran. The variables I’ve considered:

• Amount of war in region
• Level of political corruption
• Freedom of press and people
• How dangerous the roads are
• Access to implements to which one person can kill another
• Journalist conferences that are subject to terrorism