Janine di Giovanni, who described the experience of reporting from Syria for The Lede last week, has answered a selection of questions posed to her by our readers.
Ms. di Giovanni, while in Syria, had you ever tried to find out what has happened to Mrs. Asma al-Assad and whether you could have an interview with her?
 - J. von Hettlingen, Switzerland
I did try to interview Mrs. Assad because there are many questions I would have liked to have asked her. For instance, as a mother, how can she stand by and allow such inhumane treatment of children and civilians? It proved impossible to reach her. I think the last thing the First Lady wants is to give interviews, nor is she in a position to. Also, she has no need to. Although one thing I noticed in Damascus on my first trip is that most people, before the war, had tremendous respect for her, unlike in Jordan, where I have worked and where the locals I talked to were quite unpleasant about Queen Rania.




I'm glad that for once we get a view from the Syrian government's side. Congratulations and thanks. I feel that our media have been very one sided and superficial in this conflict, basically cheering on the rebel and acting as an instrument of the western strategy.
 - Christof Zalka, Switzerland

It's very easy to tell the rebels story â€" first of all, because reporters have access to them. Anyone can fly to Turkey and cross the border and work with them, though of course there are serious risks. But it's difficult to get a visa, difficult to find stories when you work in a regime, and difficult when you are not given a lot of time in country. I had seven days. I am surprised that people assume I support the regime simply because I went as a legal journalist - all I wanted was to give another side to the story - but it's not MY Side. Journalists are not advocates for a position, other than trying to give readers information so they can themselves make informed decisions. Thank you for writing.
“Bleary-eyed?†Reportorial impressionism as reporting? That's all you can say about Assad's totalitarian onslaught? Come on! Who cares if they are bleary-eyed - what are the eyes like of the civilians who have had to escape the attacks of the Syrian army? The point of view of the Syrian army is just propaganda. This is all dubious because of its source. Poor bleary-eyed victims - is what Janine's's trying to say - making us feel sympathy for the murderers? New York Times, give us a break, no more of this; do not serve as a conduit for Assad propaganda, please. What I'd like to know - what is the essential unstated fact in this is whether Di Goivanni had to have her copy passed by the Assad regime censors. If you are The New York Times you will answer.
 - Ex- Expat, Middle East
I did not pass my copy to censors. Absolutely not, under no circumstances. In fact, in terms of working in closed countries - and I have worked in many - working under the Assad regime was not nearly as difficult as Saddam's Iraq or working undercover in Chechnya. Because I was alone, and I was not with a television crew, it was easier for me to work and to maneuver. There were no censors, although I am sure my phone was hacked as well as my e-mail. There's nothing I could do about this, but it never influenced who I spoke with or what I reported.
The only place I have ever had to pass my copy to censors - and I did so only because I would not have been allowed to report if I had not - as when I was with British troops in Helmand, Afghanistan. And even then, the censor took out nothing; he was more worried that I would give away location of the soldiers and endanger them.
I do not think I portrayed the Syrian soldiers as victims - I just said they were exhausted from fighting. I think in covering any conflict it is essential for journalists to try to tell the story from both sides so that readers can make their own informed decisions. I have reported combat for 20 years and one thing I learned is that soldiers don't necessarily always swallow a regime's politics - often they have to be there, and it's the last place they want to be. Of course there are “true believers†but if there are, then it is my job as an eyewitness to say what they are thinking. If I had been alive during World War II, I would have wanted to be a witness in Berlin to the Nazi regime. Bearing witness is our job. Reporting the Assad regime does not mean it is my own personal belief.
There are many people reporting the position of the opposition Free Syrian Army. I had a rare opportunity as a reporter to report from the regime side. This does not mean in any way I support the Assad regime. I am a r eporter and while I have gotten involved in other stories I have reported - Bosnia, for example, as I lived in Sarajevo during the siege - I am simply trying to tell the story, without a spin. Just write the facts as I see them.




Hi Janine. Standout reporting from Homs and glad you made it out safe. I'm interested to know what ultimately led you to agree to report this story by yourself and, understanding now what you saw, whether you think the coverage of the war has been thorough enough to capture what's really happening on the ground. Again, thanks for taking the risks.
 - Andrew, New York
Hi Andrew. I always work on my own, occasionally with a photographer. I actually find it easier, and sometimes safer. I weigh risks very carefully, as someone who has a lot of experience, and I do think this assignment was worth it - because Homs has been widely reported from the opposition perspective and barely at all from the regime side. I want to know what they think, what goes on in their heads - and I also wanted to see civilians who were returning to their homes near the front line. The basis of my work is usually to see how war effects the lives of civilians and the fabric of society.
Has the reporting captured what's on the ground? This is a very tiny slice of what is happening in Syria today. But sometimes, as a journalist, you can only hope to capture the small details and hope that leads to a bigger story.
Damas http://t.co/v41mdnWw
- janinedigiovanni (@janinedigi) 5 Oct 12




I believe that Mao said “political power comes from the barrel of a gun.†Another dictator, Joseph Stalin, said when asked “what will the Pope say?†replied “how many divisions does the Pope command?†The point is that in all these types of struggles, it does finally get down to brute force before the issue is decided. Sad but true.
 - Designer, New York
I do not agree. Power is not always from guns, but from people power. Gene Sharp, who is the guru of non-violent resistance, modeled on Martin Luther King Jr., and Gandhi, has written many textbooks on how to start revolutions without violence. Tunisia was a fairly good example of that; Serbia another - a group of students and farmers overthrew the dictator Milosevic. I think that violence is always a last choice, and even then, I do not condone it. Remember Syria started out as peaceful protests before the government fired on demonstrators.
Once again, where is the U.N.? They do nothing unless the U.S. is leading the charge (and paying the bills). Shameful.
 - SW, San Francisco
Please don't get me started on the U.N. I lived through Bosnia, Rwanda, East Timor, Kosovo, Iraq and Af ghanistan in their string of disasters. I am the most bitter about Srebrenica. But in this case, I have to defend them. Russia and China are blocking them from doing anything - and the U.N. monitors are frozen, hopelessly, and not allowed to work. The ones I met want to get on the ground to see what is happening, to negotiate. Kofi Annan left the mission frustrated and beaten. Remember, as head of the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations, he also was around when the Serbs massacred 8000 men and boys in Srebrenica, and during Rwanda, so he should have known better. I have great respect for Lakhdar Brahimi, but I fear he has taken on a hopeless mission - neither side wants a ceasefire yet, or is ready for negotiation.
