use Perl

• up close and too personal? (Score:1)

  by jjohn (22)

  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
  • Re:up close and too personal? (Score:2, Interesting)

    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*
    

    Reply to This

    Parent