Noe å tenke over, også for andre enn amerikanere: It is very frustrating for those of us who work in journalism to hear armchair quarterbacks talk about the media being dishonest, inaccurate, etc, while being uselessly non-specific about where the supposedly dishonest and inaccurate reporting is, except categorically, in outlets they dont like or that dont reflect their own political inclinations. (The NYTimes is categorically wrong or Fox News is categorically wrong, depending on your political leanings.) Im not tempted to drop out myself, but I dont do conflict reporting, and I definitely understand why war reporters like Tom Peter who decide to drop out because Why risk it all to get the facts for people who increasingly seem only to seek out the information they want and brand the stories and facts that don’t conform to their opinions as biased or inaccurate? And even more so when I see comments in articles about James Foley suggesting that he shouldnt have been in a war zone in the first place, doing his job--that he deserved it because he chose to take the risk. If you dont understand the value of knowing what the hell is happening in the rest of the world and think that can magically be accomplished without the work of people like Foley, Id like to know how you think that can be done. Id also ask you to consider what a world looks like with no international news media, where everyone can be ignorant and complacent about where we as Americans fit into global events. - Elizabeth Spiers -
Posted on: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 19:10:49 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015