It has become very clear that being a journalist in a war zone now means that you are target #1 rather than someone to go to in order to get your point across.

There are two distinct reasons for this.

First, the fact that American forces have killed, bombed, and detained journalists has helped ensure that journalists have no "safe zone" to go to unless they report what is demanded of them (best picture scenarios).

Second, the technological advances that allow anybody to put things within their own "frame", and broadly disseminate it, has allowed "insurgents, terrorists, dead- enders, or the name- of- the- week" for the "other side", has allowed them to bypass journalists entirely.

In fact, the only difference is that when journalists are killed or detained by coalition (U.S., U.K.) forces they (the forces) prefer no attention. On the other hand, those (from the "other side") that fall into the various categorization listed above, see the killing or detention of a journalist as a "prize" to bring attention to themselves.

It is a 21st century model being used against a 20th (and prior centuries) age models.

All the best for those that dare bring the old model into the new century. Best wishes.