It is an iron rule of the best war correspondents - as for all good journalists - that they must not themselves become the story.
In Afghanistan they report on the violent clashes with the Taliban, showing us the astonishing courage and selfless dedication to duty of our brave fighting troops. Rupert Hamer applied this rule unyieldingly to himself.
I asked him about the great offensive against the Taliban stronghold of Musa Qala in 2007 where he was present. Characteristically self-effacing, he declined to speak about his own undoubtedly hairy experiences.
He would talk only about the operation and the troops that fought it, and he did so with remarkable insight and clarity. It is therefore only when we are faced with tragic events such as Rupert's death in battle that we reflect on the war correspondents themselves. The most courageous of them, like Rupert, go forward with the troops.
In the bloody war we are fighting in Afghanistan, journalists cannot roam the battlefield as free agents. And in the post-9/11 world reporters are seen by jihadists as at least as good a target as soldiers.
Many have been killed, kidnapped and executed. 'Embedding' with military units is increasingly necessary for a war reporter to be able do his job. Living and marching along-side the fighting troops, though usually only for a few weeks at a time, the reporter faces the same risks as the soldier.
Their roles could not be more different. But there is no difference in the courage required to patrol in vehicles or on foot through Taliban-infested ambush country, where a burst of machine-gun fire, a sniper's bullet or a powerful explosion could rip you apart at any moment, from any direction, without distinction between reporter or soldier.
To Rupert Hamer, and other journalists like him, it is vital to share these dangers with the troops. Not just to paint the picture to people back home but also to gain the trust and confidence of the men on the ground, to help them open up and tell it as it is.
Why is this important? We must know what our troops are doing in Afghanistan in our name, how they are doing it, and the reality of the hazards they face. We cannot rely only on official dispatches from the Ministry of Defence, commanders in the field, or political leaders. By definition these will frequently lack objectivity. Radio, TV and newspaper reporters give us a fuller understanding of the picture in Afghanistan.
Without them we would have much more limited insight into the incredible Rupert actions of our troops, the security they are bringing to the local population and the damage they are inflicting against the Taliban, as well as into the horrific conditions in which they live and the setbacks they face, day in, day out.
The presence of reporters among military units on operations also provides another, more subtle but important benefit.
The British military warmly embraces embedding, and this transparent approach re-assures the public that their forces are fighting a clean fight within the laws of war. But explaining what is happening on the battlefield is not the only essential function of the war correspondent.
In a tradition going back to William Howard Russell in the 1850s, they also reveal military problems that might otherwise remain buried.
In his reports from the Crimean War, Russell exposed the astonishing mis-management and neglect suffered by British soldiers, especially in the treatment of casualties and inadequacy of supplies and equipment, forcing the Government to re-evaluate the treatment of troops. I am in no doubt that our own government's recent efforts to replace the ridiculously inadequate range of Northern Ireland-era patrol vehicles in Afghanistan, to substantially increase the numbers of helicopters, and to improve the medical facilities and compensation packages for our troops is to a considerable extent the result of the exposure and focus on these issues by the media.
Rupert Hamer, in his fearless pursuit of the truth about military operations and the treatment of our Armed Forces, should take considerable credit for many improvements made to the lot of our soldiers, both back home and on the front line in Afghanistan.
For someone who had never been in the military, Rupert's understanding and empathy for our soldiers and for the conduct of war was remarkable.
He was as committed to seeing our fighting men and women properly supported as he was to the pursuit of a story.
As a nation we could not fight wars without people such as Rupert Hamer - a shining example of the best of his profession. I salute him.