Yet another CNN crew nearly gets their butts shot off in a war zone.
When will these guys learn that a camera doesn’t miraculously make them invulnerable to bullets? They’ve had individual journalists killed going all the way back to WWII. One guy with a pencil and a notepad is only putting his own life in danger. There’s five or six people on a film crew (director, sound man, camera guy, news correspondent, and others). One of these days an entire film crew will get wiped out. They just don’t seem to learn.
I want to see news coverage of wars. But at a safe and responsible distance. A two minute news story isn’t worth five or six peoples lives.
Not CNN specifically. I meant news crews from all the various networks including Reuters.
Ernie Pyle is the most famous reporter/correspondent that died in WWII. His newspaper column was very popular back then. They recently found a photo of his body. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327974,00.html
Dickey Chapelle was a woman reporter killed in Viet Nam. She was pretty experienced, I think in her late thirties or early forties? Her death was big news when I was a young kid.
I’m pretty sure all journalists in war zones are fully aware of the dangers. I think news crews nearly/actually getting their butts shot off in a war zone is a lot more common than you seem to think.
Lots of jobs and activities come with significant risks. There will always be some people who are willing to take those risks.
If people want to foolishly risk there lives for a two minute segment on the evening news then that’s fine.
I dread the two week news cycle when they find one of these news crews putrid bodies piled up in some ditch. For at least two weeks, all we’ll see is a bunch of hyper ventilating talking heads acting so shocked that someone actually killed one of their news crews. Day after day of “gee Tom was such a great guy”, “Sue was such a great gal”. :rolleyes: Meanwhile thousands of dead soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are largely ignored.
These people are talking bigger and bigger risks every year. All for a few ratings on the evening news that mean nothing. A year from now people don’t even remember what news segments they saw the previous year.
They are also risking their lives so that we, the general public, doesn’t have to rely on the official line from the government about what is going on in a war. It’s a pretty noble cause if you ask me.
Since WWII, you say? Perhaps you should consider the possibility that they know the dangers and are making a decision to take the risk because they think it’s important (or for personal glory). Journalists do not go into war zones for a two-minute story. They go there for days or weeks or months of coverage. I hate seeing anyone get hurt or killed covering a conflict and I can’t defend any specific decision, but you don’t necessarily learn everything there is to know if you keep a safe distance.
Dying is a great career move in the entertainment industry. Of course there are down sides, but if you want to go out at the top of your game, it works very well.
I still think it is stupid to send correspondents to war zones, disaster areas and the like. The last thing people need in situations like this is a Matt Lauer or Katie Couric to coddle while dealing with people who really need protections/help/medical aid.
There are enough local reporters and video cameras, especially in natural disaster areas, to cover the basics. I just don’t see the need to see Ann Curry pointing to the sad little doll in the mud next to the devastation before she is whisked off to the local Four Seasons hotel to dine on Brie and pate’ before heading out to comment on starving survivors the next day.
I think you need a reality check. Dozens of journalists are killed each year, including 31 to date in 2011. It is a serious issue, but the world doesn’t stop in the way that you suspect. In fact, the deaths of journalists is FAR more ignored than the deaths of service members – there’s no question about it.
I meant news crews from all the various networks including Reuters.