Coming a close second to the watchdog in the hierarchy of cinematic heroism is the representation of the journalist as witness to events, a term which can be viewed as merely descriptive – the journalist monitors and surveys the environment, and thus inevitably witnesses events happening – or as a more symbolic statement of social function, connoting a particular kind of integrity and trustworthiness.

To ‘bear witness’ is not just to see, but to provide evidence that something has happened, to testify on events in a way that carries conviction and credibility, because of the status of the witness, the scrutiny to which that testimony has been subjected, and the circumstances within which it is delivered. Witnesses testify in court, to judges and juries. Friends and family members bear witness that a couple have been legally married, or divorced, or that a child has been baptised in a particular religious denomination. Journalists testify to the court of public opinion that such-and-such has occurred in the world, furnishing the information, or evidence, upon which publics and their representatives go on to act. To act as a witness is not to judge the rights and wrongs of events – judgement is usually excluded from the practice of objectivity, although journalists bearing witness to some recent conflicts have, as we shall see, challenged this presumption – or to pronounce guilt on the various actors involved in a given situation, but to assist in the process of establishing if indeed a crime (legal or moral) has been committed, after which sanctions and punishments may well be forthcoming.