June 04, 2004



Perhaps the moral issue is really decided at the time of accepting the opportunity to report from the enemies perspective.

Alexis Z

Maybe I am being too simplistic, but being the only reporter on the scene, is it not more than a little possible that a journalist could transfer intelligence to the troops without REPORTING ON IT, thus not compromising his so-called neutrality?

In Jennings' case, you see a man go from the instinctually right, moral thing to say, to one he has been socialized to espouse. It is like a breakdown in mental process, down to his fervent wishing he could 're-do' his answer. Is that what happens when reality hits you head on? You stumble to try and stick to the story, say, 'Oh yeah, me too,' and then pray you could go back in time? Sounds like a psychological disorder to me.

Although the question posed to Jennings is an interesting one, because then the dilemma becomes 'should a reporter risk his life to save troops' (assuming he had to in order to alert them, which may not have been the case in Iraq, since the incident was a roadside bomb). In that case, I think it is safe to say a reporter is not obliged to become a hero, although Jennings' initial answer does garner from me a tiny, tiny, tiny bit of respect. Which he of course lost when he parrotted Wallace.

The comments to this entry are closed.