Boredalt wrote:
Aestu wrote:
Would you be raising these points if she were not a woman but a man?
Ugh. I admit that I feel differently because she’s a woman, but my point that she should have been aware of the danger, and should accept some responsibility for her safety stands whether we are talking about her or Anderson Cooper being assaulted.
What "responsibility" would that be?
Boredalt wrote:
Aestu wrote:
Would you be raising these points if she were not a reporter but a soldier?
I think the difference here is that she voluntarily put(s) herself into danger while soldiers follow orders. So, no.
Copout.
Soldiers face danger because the stakes are considered worthwhile. This is why they get medals for heroism - because some are more willing to make that choice than others. Whereas for soldiers, the impetus is that they are ordered to, for a reporter, it is that is where the action happens to be. Either way, it adds up to doing the dirty and dangerous work necessary to move this world forward.
Boredalt wrote:
Aestu wrote:
Would you be raising these points if she were not harmed but accomplished her goals and escaped potential danger?
No, I don’t think so, because her attack made it a story.
So nothing interesting was going on? Or are you saying it was her intent to solicit an attack?
Boredalt wrote:
Aestu wrote:
Would you be raising these points if she were not seeking to play a role in a foreign revolution but in a struggle against a hated enemy (e.g., Al Qaeda terrorists, etc)?
Yes. She’s been in Afghanistan, as well, among other places where revolution wasn’t the story. I believe these journalists often put themselves unnecessarily in harm’s way more to one-up other reporters than to get a story. Nir Rosen’s comments regarding Anderson Cooper and Logan were insensitive, but I’ll bet there’s some underlying truth in what he's implying about her motivations. She’s not playing a role in anything. She’s making a name for herself by reporting on those playing the roles from whatever hot spot she can get to. She wants to report history in the making, but certainly not anonymously. This is not a criticism. Let's just recognize that her bravery and devotion to her job aren't entirely selfless.
Are you saying reporters should be anonymous, that they have to be selfless monks any more than people in any other profession?
Why should reporting be a profession singularly free from ambition?
Boredalt wrote:
Aestu wrote:
Like I said, it's pusillanimous to languish in mediocrity and the status quo for fear of something not working out or someone getting hurt.
You told me something, one time, and when I see you post statements like this, I can see your admiration for people like Logan. But, I also wonder if you apply this philosophy to yourself, and if so why you’re still doing what you do, in light of our previous chat.
What behaviors are you referring to?
