The Kitsap Sun was kind enough to give me some space to say something I've been burning to say for some time now. The title above is a link to my article.
It is, admittedly, a provocative piece, and some readers seem to have missed my point. If I had had more space, I would have made a few points clearer.
It is, admittedly, a provocative piece, and some readers seem to have missed my point. If I had had more space, I would have made a few points clearer.
Above all, I hardly think Lara Logan deserved it. She is just the latest example of something that has always bothered me. Consider how much coverage her assault got—for three days on her network and at least one day on the others.
We need aggressive reporting, and for the most part, I’m a fan. Where would we be if some unbridled reporters hadn’t shown us the gap between official pronouncements and the reality in Vietnam as well as the disconnect between ends and means? And we really can’t blame some reporters for being as opportunistic as they are idealistic. But I still maintain that there is a dubious moral distinction between those who get paid to kill and those who get paid to watch.
The 1983 film Under Fire touches on this. A mercenary has occasion to remind a smugly judgmental photojournalist that they get paid the same way—by the body.
By the way, the only grievance I have with Lara Logan is that she is not provocative enough, nor is she sufficiently objective in her reporting. My current critics would do well to remember which correspondent came out publicly in defense of General McChrystal. It was Lara Logan. --EFP
No comments:
Post a Comment