It is a journalist's job to be an observer of events and relay them to the public. To do that, we often see them in the background of historical moments constantly watching and recording. However, sometimes we see some abandoning the observer's duty to take a more active part. Instead of being the author or the editor of the story, they find themselves in the shoes of a protagonist. How it happens and the problems it causes were mentioned in İbrahim Altay's article, "Be the news or report the news" published in the June 22, 2014 edition of Daily Sabah.In December 2014, a much publicized stunt by Greenpeace also provided us with a very fitting example for this argument. You probably heard of it, but for those unfamiliar with the story, let me go over the events quickly.Peru has a historical heritage site in the Nazca desert. On the site, there are lines that when looked at from above depict a hummingbird. It was first discovered in 1926, and it is thought to be more than 2,000 years old. In other words, these lines are older than the Incas. Moreover, the hummingbird is not the only thing depicted; other depictions include a flower, a spider, a dog and a monkey. Thanks to the dry climate of the region, they survived until the present day. To protect this historical discovery, it was placed under protection of both Peru and UNESCO.Greenpeace activists apparently thought such a famous site would be a perfect place for a stunt, so they decided to stage a protest right on top of this historical site by laying out letters spelling "Time for change! The future is renewable." It was aimed at the issue of climate change no doubt. Of course the government of Peru didn't take kindly to the activists trampling on such a historical site, and President Ollanta Humala stated that it was a "lack of respect for our cultural patrimony and Peruvian laws." After realizing its mistake, Greenpeace offered its apologies, but Peru's Culture Minister Diana Alvarez-Calderon said, "The damage done is irreparable, and the apologies offered by the environmental group aren't enough." Thus came legal action.First, a word of advice. I doubt Greenpeace gained any favors for its cause with such reckless disregard, and in the future should avoid proving the point of their adversaries. But our example presented itself with the legal action. It seems that with Greenpeace there were two journalists in the group: Associated Press photographer Rodrigo Abd and Reuters cameraman Herber Villarraga.They too became involved in the legal action, and the prosecutor included their names in the case. This caused a bit of a stir in many journalism organizations. Yet despite the uproar, I would like to point out that these two people are not on trial for their journalism activities. If they were, I would also join you in criticizing the Peruvian government.They claim to be journalists and not activists in this matter, but we should remember that they are on trial for trespassing and trampling historical artifacts – not being activists.On the other hand, we have the issue of activist journalists as well. Even if these two people are not, there are many who proudly state they are activist journalists. Yet when we look at their work, we can deduce that these two concepts shouldn't be mixed up. Otherwise, emotions always cause activism to prevail over the principles of journalism, and we become the spokespeople of our fanaticism.Another thing to consider is that by giving Greenpeace activists such coverage, our journalist friends could have unwillingly served as instigators. We should tread very carefully, especially if our story may include illegal activities. Let me give you a drastic example and possible repercussions of our actions: When we ask a whistleblower to steal more files from government computers, we are not investigative journalists, we are coconspirators in an espionage crime.So as the previous article said, report the news, don't become the news.