petermarcus | (no subject)

*rant on*

This story pisses me off big time. Pearl is one thing -- he was kidnapped from his normal beat, supposedly outside of the war zone. But the whining and complaining that the military and northern alliance could have potentially saved the lives of 10 to 15 journalists...by risking the lives of soldiers and local civilians...actually makes me a little ill. It's not the soldiers' job to get their legs blown off or get their helicopters shot down because a journalist wandered into a minefield. This isn't even a question of journalistic motives; whether the journalist got shot trying to expose an objective truth, or because they saw a pulitzer in their eyes, journalists cannot morally ask to risk the lives of others to save their butt when dangerous choices were made of their own free will. If a soldier or his or her commander is worried about journalists, that worry will detract from rest of the mission: ending the war as soon as possible and legitimately worrying about civilians who definitely *don't* want to be in the warzone.

*rant off*

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

You put into words perfectly what I was thinking when I read that article earlier today. Good for you for expressing them publicly.

Thank you, luv :)

I commented on this very article here.

wiredferret had some really good points, too.

But to sum up: I share your outrage.

The objectivity angle is a nice one, though I don't believe that preserving the objectivity of non-combatants is the top priority of the Bush administration. Nor is it the top priority of the Taliban to respect that objectivity -- look at the (lack of) onsite press coverage of the Buddhist statue destruction.

In any war, the truth always comes out. There are just too many participants, willing or unwilling, to keep secrets. From Nazi concentration camps, to Cambodian raids in Vietnam, to inflated hit statistics in Iraq, the truth will surface with or without the immediate, local presence of journalists.

My sentiments exactly!