Kidnapped WSJ Reporter: Your thoughts?

[tw]

Originally posted by mmesker
Do reporters belong in the midst of a war?

First, this WSJ reporter was not in a war zone. He was in a major Pakistani city when he was kidnapped.

Second, yes reporters absolutely belong in war zones. To say no is to be totally ignorant of VietNam. Would you advocate the death of 50,000 Americans in a blind belief that George Jr was telling us the truth? We knew Nixon lied only because some reporters in the war zone who managed to have the truth reported.

"Tin soldiers and Nixon's coming ... We're finally on our own ... This summer I hear the calling ... Four dead in Ohio..."

Amazing that the NY Times or Washington Post were accused of being liberal, anti-American, and communist because they were the few news publications to print what we now know was the true story - from and in the war zone.

The question of whether to protect reporters is asked in a Fred Friendly sponsored forum so often repeated on PBS where famous people become hypothetical actors in a no-win situation.

BTW, there is one man in those scenarios that demonstrates an inability to grasp the full problem - Gen William Westmoreland. And who is on the panel? A 60 Minutes reporter that Westmoreland foolishly sued over VietNam.

Do we have a problem with the truth? Yes, we don't have enough reporters in the Middle East. It is why the stories we see in the news don't provide viewpoints that the Middle East has seen daily in their satellite TV news. It is why we don't see the upcoming disaster if we continue to support extremist right wing Israelis in the extermination of another people. If Pakistan is a war zone, then so is Israel, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somolia, Kashmir, India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Phillippines, Singapore ....

Are we to remain ignorant of those regions also. Unfortunately we have so few reporters in 'war zones' that we are already ignorant of wars that could easily drag us in.