CBS news correspondent injured in Iraq

[REMgirl]

There's a full story at:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/30/iraq/main1664012.shtml

Here's an interesting factoid: There were 63 journalists killed in Vietnam over the twenty years of that war. There have been 71 journalists killed in Iraq since March of 2003. (courtesy Harper's).

[markalot]

There's a full story at:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/30/iraq/main1664012.shtml

Here's an interesting factoid: There were 63 journalists killed in Vietnam over the twenty years of that war. There have been 71 journalists killed in Iraq since March of 2003. (courtesy Harper's).


Vietnam didn't have an embedded journalist program IIRC.

There was a soldier who was killed yeseterday and another one the day before. They had never been on TV their killings were part of a broader headline and not front page news. The media makes me sick.

[Duemellon]

The media makes me sick.??

So the media makes you sick? Who's more valuable the soldier or the newscaster?

Why should the soldiers' lives be more revered? Were they not humans? Did they ascend to something else? Was it because they put their lives on the line just like the newscaster did in an attemp (albiet limited due to regulations) to help feed the most important element of democracy:


clear & true information about reality?

[markalot]

??

So the media makes you sick? Who's more valuable the soldier or the newscaster?

Why should the soldiers' lives be more revered? Were they not humans? Did they ascend to something else? Was it because they put their lives on the line just like the newscaster did in an attemp (albiet limited due to regulations) to help feed the most important element of democracy:


clear & true information about reality?

Did the news crews death change your opinion about the war? Mine neither. The question is not if the soldier is more important but rather if the news reported is more important. Not reporters, but reporter (singular).

[slopechz]

Did the news crews death change your opinion about the war? Mine neither. The question is not if the soldier is more important but rather if the news reported is more important. Not reporters, but reporter (singular).
I find your reasoning on this subject flawed. Dozier spent 3 years straight in very dangerous conditions and I applaud her for that. She is a brave, bad ass lady in my book.

[markalot]

I find your reasoning on this subject flawed. Dozier spent 3 years straight in very dangerous conditions and I applaud her for that. She is a brave, bad ass lady in my book.


I agree, I think you've missed my point. If she is so important as to name names then why aren't we given the names of every soldiers death as front page news? Are the soldiers less important?

[REMgirl]

I agree, I think you've missed my point. If she is so important as to name names then why aren't we given the names of every soldiers death as front page news? Are the soldiers less important?


Every Sunday George Stephanopolis lists the week's dead American soldiers by name, age and hometown on his show.

On a local level here, if soldiers from the area are killed they are given front page coverage.

Nationally known journalists injured in war get front page news because they are not soldiers. They are performing another service; reporting on the war, not fighting it.

[the happy prole]

I agree, I think you've missed my point. If she is so important as to name names then why aren't we given the names of every soldiers death as front page news? Are the soldiers less important?

The news agencies are kind of damned if they do, damned if they don't.

If they read the names of soldiers then lefties complain the news is honoring soldiers too much and therefore glorifying war. And righties complain the news is harping to much on deaths and bad things instead of all the positive events.

If they ignore the names of soldiers the lefties accuse the news of trying to downplay the bad, and righties complain that soldiers aren't getting respect.

People just using deaths and war to spin things in the favor... it's pretty disgusting.

[slopechz]

I agree, I think you've missed my point. If she is so important as to name names then why aren't we given the names of every soldiers death as front page news? Are the soldiers less important?
No I got your point. And your being absurd, again. We should be given the names of every casualty of this war. US soldiers, Iraqi citizens, media...., etc. etc.

[Duemellon]

Soldiers are trained to defend our interests at all costs. Those that do so willingly give up their lives to protect our nation's interests. They sign up to defend or attain our interests & do so without discretion to where they end up or if they fight at all.

The reporters go their of their own free will (to keep their job, in some cases, but they could still say "no" & not go to jail). They could chose to go to Wallawalla WA or stand in the line of fire.

Which one is more "brave"? (if the soldiers have integrity & try to uphold the intent of their pledge to our nation)

Which one provides a more needed service? (if the journalists have integrity & try to report the facts as they are instead of sensationalizing it)

Soldiers die. They're trained to die. Sure, the 1st thing they're trained to do is serve our nation's interests with honor & morality, but after that, how they serve it is at our leader's ultimate & complete will.

[the happy prole]

Yes, the soldiers willingly give up their lives to protect the country. Isn't that somewhat honorable? To the extent that they do it for the money, the soldiers are going through a lot worse and probably paid a lot less than Wolf Blitzer or Christiane Amanpour. Probably even the technicians are making more than the reservists out there.

Yes, soldiers serve at their leader's will. Which means they HAVE to be out there, the reporters don't. If the soldiers were draftees, wouldn't they be even more sympathetic? I mean, here's a guy who is one day sitting around thinking about baseball and the hot chick who works at the bar and six very unpleasant months later, he's dead. You work for ABC and they send you over, you say "No, thanks" and quit.

Which one provides the more needed service? Well, if reporting from the front is a needed service, than someone has to protect those reporters because they wouldn't last too long.

To me, they are equal. If the soldiers are protecting the reporters, the reporters do their part by bringing home the soldiers' stories which will hopefully prevent their leaders from doing stupid things. And to the extent that the soldiers are, in a broader sense, out protecting our free speech rights it's the reporters who make those rights mean something by letting us know what the government is up to.

I think if the reporters are killed outside of combat then that should be a news story because killing civilians is a big deal. If they are out with soldiers, I think they should be treated as soldiers in terms of news reporting.

[slopechz]

To me, they are equal. If the soldiers are protecting the reporters, the reporters do their part by bringing home the soldiers' stories which will hopefully prevent their leaders from doing stupid things. And to the extent that the soldiers are, in a broader sense, out protecting our free speech rights it's the reporters who make those rights mean something by letting us know what the government is up to
Exactly my point.

[jd1]

Why should the soldiers' lives be more revered? Were they not humans? Did they ascend to something else? Was it because they put their lives on the line just like the newscaster did in an attemp (albiet limited due to regulations) to help feed the most important element of democracy:


clear & true information about reality?Could not an argument be made that physical security is the most important element of democracy? "Clear and true information" (for the purposes of democratic debate) became meaningless to the French democracy of 1940 as the Germans overran their nation and installed a vile tyranny.

Or, if security is not more important than information, can we not recognize it as coequal?

Of course, America today is not 1940 France... The analogy is limited, and should not be taken to suggest too much. I also want to reject the idea that security and liberty fall into some kind of zero-sum equation, that we must always trade one to obtain the other. People who think like that are not being creative enough. We should demand both from our system of government.

(BTW, Due, welcome back!)

--JD

[Duemellon]

Could not an argument be made that physical security is the most important element of democracy?No. I really don't see it that way.

Misinformed security is no help for critical decision making necessary for a democracy.Or, if security is not more important than information, can we not recognize it as coequal?I guess it's one of those things. I don't believe I ever said that info was more important, just asked why it seemed the news people who were killed & hurt were being insulted.

I understand there's a natural tendency to assume that if someone opposes one view they're directly opposed, not askew or perpendicular.

Information v. security is equal. The amount of "bravery" is something that can't be compared because they have different motivations & signed up for it in different ways with different participation levels in the situation.I also want to reject the idea that security and liberty fall into some kind of zero-sum equation, that we must always trade one to obtain the other. People who think like that are not being creative enough. We should demand both from our system of government.what a nice idea. Maybe we should get to work on that?

Oh, you're saying it was always a myth? That it's quite possible that those who traded liberty to be more secure were probably doing something else with their newfound capabilities?