|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:23 pm Post subject: Why Americans Hate the Media |
 |
|
Why Americans Hate the Media
This article is ten years old. Do we think it is still relevent? It's a long one, but it'll hook you in with its intro...
| Quote: |
Ogletree turned to the two most famous members of the evening's panel, better known even than Westmoreland. These were two star TV journalists: Peter Jennings, of World News Tonight and ABC, and Mike Wallace, of 60 Minutes and CBS.
Ogletree brought them into the same hypothetical war. He asked Jennings to imagine that he worked for a network that had been in contact with the enemy North Kosanese government. After much pleading Jennings and his news crew got permission from the North Kosanese to enter their country and film behind the lines. Would Jennings be willing to go? Of course, he replied. Any reporter would�and in real wars reporters from his network often had.
But while Jennings and his crew were traveling with a North Kosanese unit, to visit the site of an alleged atrocity by U.S. and South Kosanese troops, they unexpectedly crossed the trail of a small group of American and South Kosanese soldiers. With Jennings in their midst the Northern soldiers set up an ambush that would let them gun down the Americans and Southerners.
What would Jennings do? Would he tell his cameramen to "Roll tape!" as the North Kosanese opened fire? What would go through his mind as he watched the North Kosanese prepare to fire?
Jennings sat silent for about fifteen seconds. "Well, I guess I wouldn't," he finally said. "I am going to tell you now what I am feeling, rather than the hypothesis I drew for myself. If I were with a North Kosanese unit that came upon Americans, I think that I personally would do what I could to warn the Americans."
Even if it meant losing the story? Ogletree asked.
Even though it would almost certainly mean losing my life, Jennings replied. "But I do not think that I could bring myself to participate in that act. That's purely personal, and other reporters might have a different reaction."
Ogletree turned for reaction to Mike Wallace, who immediately replied. "I think some other reporters would have a different reaction," he said, obviously referring to himself. "They would regard it simply as another story they were there to cover." A moment later Wallace said, "I am astonished, really." He turned toward Jennings and began to lecture him: "You're a reporter. Granted you're an American" (at least for purposes of the fictional example; Jennings has actually retained Canadian citizenship). "I'm a little bit at a loss to understand why, because you're an American, you would not have covered that story."
Ogletree pushed Wallace. Didn't Jennings have some higher duty to do something other than just roll film as soldiers from his own country were being shot?
"No," Wallace said flatly and immediately. "You don't have a higher duty. No. No. You're a reporter!"
Jennings backtracked fast. Wallace was right, he said: "I chickened out." Jennings said that he had "played the hypothetical very hard."He had lost sight of his journalistic duty to remain detached.
As Jennings said he agreed with Wallace, several soldiers in the room seemed to regard the two of them with horror. Retired Air Force General Brent Scowcroft, who would soon become George Bush's National Security Advisor, said it was simply wrong to stand and watch as your side was slaughtered. "What's it worth?" he asked Wallace bitterly. "It's worth thirty seconds on the evening news, as opposed to saving a platoon."
After a brief discussion between Wallace and Scowcroft, Ogletree reminded Wallace of Scowcroft's basic question. What was it worth for the reporter to stand by, looking? Shouldn't the reporter have said something ?
Wallace gave a disarming grin, shrugged his shoulders, and said, "I don't know." He later mentioned extreme circumstances in which he thought journalists should intervene. But at that moment he seemed to be mugging to the crowd with a "Don't ask me!"expression, and in fact he drew a big laugh�the first such moment in the discussion. Jennings, however, was all business, and was still concerned about the first answer he had given.
"I wish I had made another decision," Jennings said, as if asking permission to live the past five minutes over again. "I would like to have made his decision"�that is, Wallace's decision to keep on filming.
A few minutes later Ogletree turned to George M. Connell, a Marine colonel in full uniform. Jaw muscles flexing in anger, with stress on each word, Connell said, "I feel utter contempt."
Two days after this hypothetical episode, Connell said, Jennings or Wallace might be back with the American forces�and could be wounded by stray fire, as combat journalists often had been before. When that happens, he said, they are "just journalists." Yet they would expect American soldiers to run out under enemy fire and drag them back, rather than leaving them to bleed to death on the battlefield.
"I'll do it!" Connell said. "And that is what makes me so contemptuous of them. Marines will die going to get . . . a couple of journalists." The last words dripped disgust.
Not even Ogletree knew what to say. There was dead silence for several seconds. Then a square-jawed man with neat gray hair and aviator glasses spoke up. It was Newt Gingrich, looking a generation younger and trimmer than he would when he became speaker of the House, in 1995. One thing was clear from this exercise, Gingrich said. "The military has done a vastly better job of systematically thinking through the ethics of behavior in a violent environment than the journalists have."
That was about the mildest way to put it. Although Wallace and Jennings conceded that the criticism was fair�if journalists considered themselves "detached,"they could not logically expect American soldiers to rescue them�nevertheless their reactions spoke volumes about the values of their craft. Jennings was made to feel embarrassed about his natural, decent human impulse. Wallace seemed unembarrassed about feeling no connection to the soldiers in his country's army or considering their deaths before his eyes "simply a story." In other important occupations people sometimes face the need to do the horrible. Frederick Downs, after all, was willing to torture a man and hear him scream. But Downs had thought through all the consequences and alternatives, and he knew he would live with the horror for the rest of his days. When Mike Wallace said he would do something horrible, he barely bothered to give a rationale. He did not try to explain the reasons a reporter might feel obliged to remain silent as the attack began�for instance, that in combat reporters must be beyond country, or that they have a duty to bear impartial witness to deaths on either side, or that Jennings had implicitly made a promise not to betray the North Kosanese when he agreed to accompany them. The soldiers might or might not have found such arguments convincing; Wallace didn't even make them. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Don Gately
Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Location: In a basement taking a severe beating
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To me, and I am a journalist, I agree with Wallace. In war, as in life, we all have different jobs to do, different roles to play. To borrow from "Charge of the Light Brigade," the job of a soldier, by definition, is to fight and die. the job of a reporter, alternatively, is to objectively record events and report them to viewers and readers. This is why nature documentarians don't save the bear cubs when they're starving, no matter how cute they are. you're there to report, not intervene.
That said, if I was on patrol with a unit, would I expect them to save me if I got shot? you bet that if I was lying next to another soldier I'd expect them to grab him first. Also, if on patrol with a unit, I'd like to think I'd grab one of the soldiers who was shot/hurt and try to get him back to safety. Why? Because you're on patrol with that unit. But ifyou're on patrol with a North Kosanese Unit, the same principles apply.
There's different roles to play in any situation. Is a soldier's more noble? Maybe. But I'd argue that any war worth fighting is worth covering as objectively, honestly, and completely as possible, and part of that is you don't get to call out ambushes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Don Gately wrote: |
To me, and I am a journalist, I agree with Wallace. In war, as in life, we all have different jobs to do, different roles to play. To borrow from "Charge of the Light Brigade," the job of a soldier, by definition, is to fight and die. the job of a reporter, alternatively, is to objectively record events and report them to viewers and readers. This is why nature documentarians don't save the bear cubs when they're starving, no matter how cute they are. you're there to report, not intervene.
That said, if I was on patrol with a unit, would I expect them to save me if I got shot? you bet that if I was lying next to another soldier I'd expect them to grab him first. Also, if on patrol with a unit, I'd like to think I'd grab one of the soldiers who was shot/hurt and try to get him back to safety. Why? Because you're on patrol with that unit. But ifyou're on patrol with a North Kosanese Unit, the same principles apply.
There's different roles to play in any situation. Is a soldier's more noble? Maybe. But I'd argue that any war worth fighting is worth covering as objectively, honestly, and completely as possible, and part of that is you don't get to call out ambushes. |
Well, a journalist and a soldier both have difficult jobs if they are in a war situation. They both are in danger. The journalist must cover the story from various sides. He is not to be focused on national pride, nationalism. That is not perceived to be the role, though increasingly that is the way journalists are these days and many expect them to essentially wave the flag. I can understand Jennings' hesitation, but Wallace was right that it is a story. No matter how painful it is, it is a story, and if they warned the soldiers, they would be killed, anyway.
A soldier's work these days is often nobler than that of the journalist since too many journalists are stuck covering silly stories like Paris Hilton while soldiers are dying out there, and we don't hear of real, serious, hard-hitting stories. I don't have respect for the launching of the War in Iraq, but I respect the sacrifices the soldiers are making on behalf of their country. I don't take most of the journalists seriously or their executives. The public doesn't take the media seriously, but they respect the soldiers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
