Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • 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
    • by pudge (1) on 2002.03.05 9:04 (#5484) Homepage Journal
      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*