Dead Journalists and the Policy That Makes Them So

gnat on 2002-03-05T11:01:02

A reporter has an interesting observation on the death of Daniel Pearl.

--Nat

up close and too personal?

jjohn on 2002-03-05T13:17:08

I've often wondered at the need to have battlefield reporting. Yes, reporters can be check against excessive military exuberance (they can also end up tools of propaganda for both sides). I know that I wouldn't do what these fools, that is battlefield reporters, do. That said, I find Rumsfield's reported callous attitude toward reporters deplorable. There is a very thin line between setting a clear policy (no reporters) and missing an opportunity to help an American (and taxpayer) in distress. Perhaps, CNN needs the robot planes the Army uses. That's television I'd tune in to!

Re:up close and too personal?

pudge on 2002-03-05T14:04:20
Well, as a former journalist (though certainly not a war correspondent :-) my take is that journalists have no reason to expect help from any government, nor do they have any reason to be a target for any significant amount of sympathy or pity.

That said, I am very grateful for the sacrifices they make. While they are not required to do what they do, and so willing and eagerly, they do help us out to a tremendous degree, being our eyes and ears, and deserve our gratitude when they do a good job (that would include Pearl, and exclude Geraldo).

As to Rumsfeld: I'd have to hear his side before I could judge him for the order. It could very well be that Rumsfeld knows things we don't; perhaps he knows that if we help journalists, they will be MORE likely to be targets, or maybe that journalists will be targeted more just to get to our military. I don't know, we don't know, and this journalist doesn't explain. He doesn't quote him, doesn't cite any source, and I was unable to find any source or context with a Google search. *shrug*

If it were anyone else reporting...

rjray on 2002-03-05T23:08:32

After chatting with a very politically-attentive friend at lunch about this story, I found out that Ted Rall has some credibility issues. He apparently is given to making claims and jumping to conclusions without a lot of supporting information. She pointed me towards the following recent stories:

This isn't to say that maybe the U.S. is more sensitive to things now than they were a few weeks ago. But pudge had a good point, one that has been made by Rumsfeld and others, that if the journalists felt they had some guarantee of military aid they might be more likely to enter into dangerous situations.

None of this excuses the shoddy facades of information coming out of the Pentagon or the White House.

--rjray

Re:If it were anyone else reporting...

pudge on 2002-03-07T15:52:47
I saw this comic from Ted Rall (he is a cartoonist as well as columnist) today that says that American widows of the terrorist attacks are uncaring money-grubbing whiners.

I officially dislike Ted Rall.

Re:If it were anyone else reporting...

vsergu on 2002-03-09T02:00:06
Here is someone's parody response to it and the fact that Rall is apparently suing someone for $1.5 million because of an e-mail prank.

"reporter"

gnat on 2002-03-07T22:51:11

Yes, having seen Ted Rall's cartoon on WTC widows, I've decided he's a bunghole who can be safely ignored.

Idea for a site: a database with an entry for every op-ed writer. The entry has two blurbs about their biases, one written by a friend and one by a critic. "Ted tells it how it is!" "Ted is a right-wing fuckwit who wants to prostitute war widows and sack the White House!" Figuring the truth is somewhere in the middle, you could get a feel for the lens through which that writer views the world.

"through which that" ... Mrs Lorimer, my 6th form English teacher, would vomit in the rubbish bin if she saw that.

--Nat