You can remain detached, keep your journalistic ethics and remain a human being and still get the story. But bottom line I would choose to prevent the loss of innocent lives than get a story any day.

The type of reporter or videographer that would stand on shore filming as a person was drowning or in this case witnessed a terrorist attack in progress and acted in collusion with the terrorist is nothing short of a reprobate.

I am not even a strong supporter of the president, I just cannot understand the hate. Nor can I understand the inability of the haters to see anything else, especially on their side. I see lots wrong with both parties, or, what I used to think of as my party. The gay agenda and the multiculturalism have invaded and infected my side of the aisle. Socialism has gained a grip. Both of those are mainstays of the party elite, though and thankfully, fairly well rejected by the rank and file (so far). I fear my party, more than theirs, in that I am supposed to have input and be represented by my party. Anyway, I don’t think the left of center and further can get past Bush, to look at their party, the news, newsmen, or most else.

I’ll be gone a bit, and will not leave my little “gifts” (think pet) for a while. I hope the new place is beginning to fit like it should, and fits better in time. I thought I should wish you a Merry Christmas, again. In the celebration and season, even I see hope.

Good reporting, via shining light on an invalid or hopeless American war policy, can bring change to that policy, thus saving a large number of American lives.

Wallace and Jennings might also argue that shining light on a valid American cause will rally the support of the American people to the cause, and the support of the American people will allow the war to be carried out more effectively. This would, in it’s own way, save more lives than the 15 which would’ve been saved if Jennings had warned the Marines of an impending attack.

The problem I have - with my hypothesized Wallace/Jennings rationale - is it puts the reporters in the position of playing God with human lives. Or, it at least puts reporters in the position of making cost vs. benefit decisions which are properly made by due representatives of the American government - such as the President, or an authorized military commander. The reporters have no ethical or moral authority to make cost-benefit decisions about the lives of those Marines. The reporters have no higher authority from God. The reporters have no governmental or constitutional authority from the United States. Mike Wallace, possibly, is comfortable playing God. But I am not comfortable when he plays it.

St. Thomas Aquinas laid out principles

Are you quite sure about that, Doom?

In this case the journalists have placed themselves on Mt. Olympus. They are saying, “We are wiser and we kinow better than the citizens that have been elected to protect the country.” In fact they have detached themselves from being Americans at all and instead have become all-wise “citizens of the world.” In their so-called wisdom they feel justified in letting people die just because they believe they are right.

I liken it to a family member who, after receiving higher education, looks at his family and sees that it is dysfunctional. Considering himself above all that, takes it upon himself to constantly criticize and distance himself. Even to the extent that he won’t call 911 when he sees a burgular breaking into the house. His family may not be the paragon he wished it was, but to knowingly allow harm to that family falls to the level of………..pond scum.

Further, such a journalists (like Wallace & Jennings as well as many others today) forfeit any right to be embedded with our troops because they have nothing but contempt for their mission. I am with COL Connel in holding nothing but contempt for them.

Of course, this principle it seems ought to be superceded by the principle of saving lives — however, you might consider this argument (I’m not saying I believe it, but I am offering it). One reason reporters are often allowed into dangerous areas, even enemy territory, is that they are seen, basically, as uninvolved observers. For this reason reporters have managed to get information to the public in a wide variety of very dangerous situations. If reporters started to regularly get involved in an active way with what they were reporting on, this information flow might stop. They might become much more active targets than they already are, in war zones, etc. This would have the effect of making it much harder for us to find out what is going on especially in parts of the world where we’re not ordinarily very welcome.

I actually think this is a tough ethical question to resolve — by intervening to save the lives of some American soldiers, they might not only be risking their own lives, but putting the lives of many more reporters at risk. At that point the question I think becomes less cut and dried. I think in my case, I’d probably err on the side of saving lives, but I do think Wallace and Jennings have a reasonable case to be made that reporters should not interfere with what they’re reporting on.

The idea that a person will stand by and watch evil occur because it benefits them personally, that such a person has “principles”, is too much into the territory of the Faeries, Mitsu.

That might be important to people that get their info from reports, Mitsu. But we aren’t those people.

Neoneocon writes: “Oh, I know: postmodernism, reporters elevating themselves and their profession into “journalists” who stand above such petty emotions as nationalism—and even, it seems, their duty to prevent the killing of their fellow human beings.”

A reporter is about to witness an ambush behind enemy lines. Since it takes place in enemy territory, we know the armed men about to be ambushed are on their way to kill opposing soldiers and possibly civilians as well. What gives the journalist the right to “play God” by deciding it’s better to prevent the deaths of one group of soldiers and thereby abet the deaths of the others? At least by saying nothing, he’s doing his best under the circumstances to avoid actively helping anyone kill anyone.

The hypothetical isn’t about the “duty to prevent the killing of their fellow human beings,” it’s about whether journalists have a moral obligation to take the American side in a war.

We can have an honest debate about the nature and extent of the moral superiority of one military force over another, but we can’t honestly assume it in a hypothetical situation.

The Marine referred to in the article argues that he and the people under his command would risk their lives to save the journalist, thereby contrasting their behavior with the journalist’s. But such a contrast ignores a crucial detail: The hypothetical asserts that the journalist’s action to save American soldiers under ambush would almost certainly lead to his own death.

As a journalist, he or she would be defenseless and directly in the hands of the soldiers he’d be betraying. Not so for the Marines out to save the journalist. The Marines would not only have the best available arms but also would be trained for just such a mission and would plan and execute it with every intention of surviving. The Marine commander would not send Americans under his command on a certain or near-certain suicide mission to save a reporter, nor would it be ethical for him to do so.

More important, there would be no reason for the Marine to believe that by rescuing a journalist he would be endangering the lives of anyone else. So the Marine never has to “play God” by deciding the journalist is worth saving and others worth killing because of their race, religion or nationality.

The journalist, however, is put in the position of having to decide that the value of the invading troops’ lives is greater than the value of those the troops are on their way to kill.

He or she may well have moral grounds to decide that’s the case, but it cannot be assumed on the basis of nationality, race or religion.

And Gingrich’s observations about soldiers being better prepared to act ethically in extreme situations doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The ethical imperatives for a soldier are far simpler and better defined a priori. He has already agreed not to think of the enemy as human in any complete sense of the word. Journalists haven’t agreed to operate under that same assumption.

One thing does come clear from this discussion: neocons admit that “fair and balanced” journalism is a euphemism for pro-American with extreme prejudice.

I could see the value of interviewing the enemy in their camp, and finding out the thoughts about aspects of the conflict. But it seems, to me, creepy and immoral to accompany them when they might possibly attack Americans. The more I think about accompanying such a patrol, the more it turns my stomach.

McLovin, I disagree with many of your assertions, but I appreciate the thought you put into them. It is nice to have discussion which doesn’t degenerate into ad hominem.

Mitsu: …by intervening to save the lives of some American soldiers, they might not only be risking their own lives, but putting the lives of many more reporters at risk

Interesting to note these strained attempts at an excuse that Wallace himself, in particular, obviously disdained — for him, as he says quite plainly, there simply is no “higher duty”: “You don’t have a higher duty. No. No. You’re a reporter!” Got that? He’s far above any tortuous hypotheticals about risking the so very precious lives of “more reporters”, nor has it anything to do with his merely political views about the advisability of this or that particular conflict. No, if we’re going to get into further imaginary situations here I think we could safely say, on the basis of his own remarks, that if he had to chose between warning authorities of terrorist plans for the Beslan slaughter, say, or helping victims of a potential mass murder escape, and simply letting his cameras roll, he would infallibly choose the latter. And in doing so, he simply dehumanizes himself, assuming the moral status of an alien slug.

It’s also interesting to note that neo’s taken this exchange about “no higher duty” from a page entitled “Why We Hate the Media”, part of a PBS Frontline website, and it ends as follows:

As American institutions in general have lost credibility, few have lost it as fully as the press. The media establishment is beginning to get at least a dim version of this message. Through the last decade, newspaper conventions have been a litany of woes. Fewer readers. Lower “penetration” rates, as a decreasing share of the public pays attention to news. A more and more desperate search for ways to attract the public’s interest. In the short run these challenges to credibility are a problem for journalists and journalism. In the longer run they are a problem for democracy.

gc: McLovin, I disagree with many of your assertions, but I appreciate the thought you put into them. It is nice to have discussion which doesn’t degenerate into ad hominem.

Right. It would be nice.

That “thought” McL is supposed to put in, in any case, is a pretty frothy attempt at apology, that, as I pointed out, Wallace himself didn’t even try to avail himself of. Here’s how James Fallows described it:

When Mike Wallace said he would do something horrible, he didn’t bother to argue 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 on the hypothetical patrol. The soldiers might or might not have found such arguments convincing, but Wallace didn’t even make them. He relied on charm and star power to win acceptance from the crowd. Mike Wallace on patrol with the North Kosanese, cameras rolling while his countrymen are gunned down, recognizing no “higher duty” to interfere in any way and offering no rationale beyond “I’m with the press”–this is a nice symbol for what Americans hate about their media establishment in our age.

So let’s return McL’s non-degeneration into ad hominem: left-libs demonstrate that they’ll grasp at anything when it comes to finding excuses for betraying their country.

Wallace’s reliance on the simplistic idea that journalistic ideals automatically trump national, ethnic or religious loyalties is sadly unpersuasive.

Fortunately, thinking people have no reason to rely on Wallace’s views. They can analyze the situation on their own and come to their own conclusions.

1. A spy against that enemy engaged in broadcasting methods and tactics to educate those fighting against that enemy. In such cases, that reporter is, by law and tradition, deserving of nothing more and nothing less than death administered by that enemy.

2. A propagandist betraying his own by reporting for the enemy and therefore an enemy agent. And, by law and tradition, deserving of nothing more or nothing less than death administered by his own.

When the two come into conflict, which should you favor?

Isn’t that a much more realistic question?

Journalists see their job as reporting. They are targeted for violence as it is, but something that protects them is this idea that they are not active participants in what they are covering. Suppose reporters secretly carried M16s and whipped them out in war zones to attack our enemy. Moral? Maybe, but it would also probably make every journalist a target in a war zone.

I think the principle of journalistic non-interference has to be weighed against the need to protect lives… but it’s not as though there’s no reason for it at all, despite the fact that Wallace didn’t defend it coherently at all. There is a reason for it and it’s not a secret… it’s something most journalists have to wrestle with all the time.

Look at it from the other side, then. Would a reporter, reporting the enemy be accompanying an American patrol as it lay an ambush? The answer is no. If you choose to research it, please prove me wrong by citing any opposing side’s journalists in the past hundred years. There are none, but go ahead and spend the time, if you like.

In war, one who observes military movements and reports them to the other side is seen as either an opportunity for disinformation, an opportunity for propaganda, or a spy. The reason that an american journalist would be asked to accompany the enemy as they laid said ambush would be for propaganda value or disinformation. In participating with enemy operations, the press makes themselves whores for the opposition. After all, their ethical principles would forbid their revealing enemy postions, weapons, tactics, etc, that is, acting as a decent spy. Unique to the American press. I’m so proud of their willingness to take on that role.

When the country is at war, it is not at the whim of a dictator. The case is made in Congress, in the Defense Department, and in the media. Votes are taken, opinions expressed, and intelligence is debated. It is a grave decision and is not arrived at because there is NO threat. But when things don’t go just as planned (as things never do in war), those who were against the war immediately decide that it was a wrong-headed idea. It is the right of journalists to jump on this bandwagon, but once again they can no longer pretend to be objective. They have made a value judgment and they are no longer impartial.

However, Wallace seems to say a journalist cannot make a judgment as to who is right or wrong and owes his loyalty only to the story. With that standard of thinking a journalist cannot, nay must not, have loyalty to his country or countrymen. He must be some kind of God-like figure looking down from on high with no skin in the game. No one is right or wrong, it is all about the story. You know - “We report, you decide.”

Do airborne TV reporters in helicopters ever decide to help the police apprehend a criminal? Yes they do. Does that benefit society? Most would say, “Yes!” because it gets a criminal off the streets - makes society safer. But in Wallace’s view it would be wrong! Best to stay uninvolved and above the fray. Keep your journalistic objectivity.

IMHO Wallace and others like him are trying to hide behind a cloak of righteous objectivity that gives them cover to pontificate on high about whatever cause they wish to champion. In that way no one can challenge their patriotism or intentions in war time.

In keeping with the season and the tradition of Dickens, I would like to say to Wallace and all like him, “BAH, HUMBUG!!”

Your argument is nothing but an apology for treason.

What “right” does the journalist have to reveal the position of an enemy ambush to the American forces? He has no right to do that. He has a duty to do that! His citizenship, his nationality does trump his “professional ethics.”

During the Second World War journalists routinely censored stories, even ran false ones in order to help the war effort. They understood that their duty as citizens outweighed their duty as journalists. Any other idea is ludicrous. The reductio ad absurdam of that would be for a terrorist to claim he shouldn’t be punished for mass murder because his professional ethics as a terrorist required him to do it.

If the journalist doesn’t want to be an American (or whatever) citizen — fine. Emigrate. Sign up with the enemy, wear the enemy’s flag proudly and broadcast their propaganda with a clear conscience. But to live as an American and refuse to save American lives merely to follow a professional code of conduct is hypocritical, treasonous, and, quite simply, evil.

What if our ideas about how to win the war against Islamic radicalism differ? Does that give me the right to call you a traitor?

When patriotism begins to demand allegiance above accountability, that’s when we should all start worrying.

I know damn well the Marines would have saved my life in Fallujah if I was in danger when I embedded with them. One Marine I spoke to said a Time magazine reporter saved his life in 2004 by pulling him up over a wall as he was falling.

Just how far would Wallace and Jennings take their commitment to detachment? Would they stand there and let a Marine fall to his death while they taped it? Or does extending a hand not violate the rule in the same way opening their mouths to warn them would?

Jesus, these people disgust me.

I would not just intervene to save the life of an American. I would intervene to save the life of an Iraqi as long as that Iraqi wasn’t trying to kill me or others. (What I mean to say is that I would not intervene to save the life of a car bomber.)

There is a good movie called Welcome to Sarajevo about journalists who violate “the rule” of detachment and save the lives of Bosnian children at the hands of genocidal Serbian fascists. It is a true story, and those people are heroes, not bad reporters.

Even if doing so was suicidal?

Remember, the hypothetical neoneocon cited involved a reporter alerting soldiers to an ambush in a situation that would almost certainly lead to the reporter’s immediate death.

Jimmyj writes:
“If they wish to report on, say the Irag War, in a manner that makes it appear
the United States is egregiously in the wrong, that is certainly their right. However, they cannot then retreat under the guise of objectivity.”

We can have an reasonable debate about whether the U.S. was right to invade Iraq, but there is no reasonable debate about whether facts showing that the U.S. was wrong should be reported.

Right and wrong matter, regardless of your nationality.

The principle is, as another journalist, above, mentioned, something one might question in some circumstances. There are very good reasons for it (which I outlined above), and I’m very glad reporters try to adhere to it most of the time (in fact, if anything, the press ought to be criticized more because they do become active participants in the news more often than they perhaps should). But, when lives are on the line, clearly it becomes a problematic situation.

I recall seeing an interview with a former war zone / disaster photographer who used to adhere to the non-interference principle with almost religious fervor. One time, during a hurricane, he photographed a woman standing on the beach, watching the waves. Literally a few seconds later a huge wave came crashed in and swept her out to sea. He saw there were others nearby who were rushing in to try to save her, but he was actually closer and could have made an effort himself, but he didn’t (for the reason above). It first appeared that the other people on the beach were going to be able to reach her, but then another huge wave came crashing in and the woman was again swept out to sea, this time to drown.

He decided at that point to give up photographing wars and disasters and just turn to other subjects, because he was so upset at what had happened.

But like I said — while I think this non-interference principle is something that ought to be questioned in certain circumstances — it is usually a good thing, and we ought to be thankful for it (usually). Maybe not in the hypothetical case outlined above, but it’s nevertheless, I think, on the whole, a good idea.

Unless Jennings lied in a broadcast interview, yes, I am quite certain he claimed to be Anti-American, saying it came from his mother. It has been some time since I viewed the piece, and I or the interview may have incorrectly implied his mother is/was Canadian. But the anit-Americanism was directly spoken, by him, in plain English, without a pretext or subtext. I watched the interview several times to make sure I wasn’t missing something. My guess, it was Lerher (sp?), or someone like him, who did the interview. I just cannot recall now.

Technically, I am away from home, thus the computer. But, I had to clear this up.

I just did an Ask.com search, to make sure the face and name where correct, in that they fit. They are, and do. I see he has died. So, I don’t worry about him having changed his mind.

A choice example at trying to focus on an irrelevant detail when your main point is lost, no? Regardless of the hypothetical, the point of Wallace’s reply, and Jennings’ shameful backdown had nothing to do with a concern for their own skins, but everything to do with a refusal to save the lives of their own people solely in order to “get the story”.

McL: There is such a thing as right and wrong, i.e. objective morality.

Yes there is, but it’s not the same as objective facts, and anyone who pretends it is, as though facts come labeled with little “good” and “evil” stickers, is either simple-minded or disingenuous. And the duty of a reporter is to report the facts, not to select and design those facts so as to reflect their personal view of that objective morality. Such a duty may only be an ideal to be striven for, perhaps, but it should at least be that.

McL: What’s more important, your ideals or your nationality?

Interesting that “ideals” and “nationality” here seem to involve an either/or opposition, isn’t it? Why wouldn’t the support of your nation be at least a part of your ideals? Whatever happened to that common leftist cry of “Don’t question our patriotism?” — do you think maybe it emerges from a bad conscience?

So many points that are so wrong, but I think there’s an underlying idea that seems to be throwing many off-track. The idea that there can actually be an exercisable “principle of journalistic non-interference”. It’s a complete impossibility. Heisenberg. The moment a reporter observes something, much less reports on it, he has affected ‘the story’. People react differently when a camera is on, or they are ‘on the record’, or even ‘off the record’ with the knowledge that they are talking to a reporter. Once a reporter files a story, the simple act of making something public knowledge will have far reaching affects. There is a reason that tyrannies control the press- it has tremendous affect, even when people KNOW that they can’t trust it. So the whole idea that reporters aren’t an intimately involved part of the whole works is silly at best. C’mon, tons of kids in J school are there because they think they can make a difference in the world. Does that sound detached to you?

“When patriotism begins to demand allegiance above accountability, that’s when we should all start worrying.”

Patriotism to what? Allegiance to whom? Whose accountability? What a meaningless statement, unless you load it with the usual anti-American ideology. Patriotism and allegiance to the U.S, bad. Accountability to mythical journalistic ethics, good.
We get it. We’ve heard that song before.

“Journalists see their job as reporting. They are targeted for violence as it is, but something that protects them is this idea that they are not active participants in what they are covering.”

Journalists have no protection whatsoever from terrorists and tyrants. They are regularly silenced and killed by them. There’s a reason most western reporters in Iraq hang around the hotel bar while their stringers go out and work up propaganda pieces for the terrorists, and it isn’t because they worry that the Marines are going to kill them. Get real.

McLovin, You seem to know very little about the men in our armed forces. You might want to start with a post over at Blackfive about a friend of his who had been killed in Iraq.
here’s the key lines:
“The one part that I left out of this post is that Major Schram’s convoy was followed by a car with a major weekly magazine reporter in it. Once the action began, the reporter and his driver turned and got the hell out of there. If it wasn’t for Mat’s charge up into the ambushers, they never would have made it out of there alive.

The weekly magazine never ran a story about my good friend, Mat.”

There are other stories, but I doubt you’re really interested. You’ve already got it all figured out. You should be a journalist (if you aren’t already).

But I’ll toss a few more your way, just in case.

Like this one:
“The most spectacular recent case of a journalist with an antiwar mindset being completely overwhelmed into a change of heart by American soldiers, according to the public affairs officer, was a Greek public television reporter who had been embedded with an infantry unit that became entrenched in a 45-minute firefight with insurgents. Yanked out of the line of fire by a soldier who put the journalist’s life above his own, he waited under cover and in fear of his life for the almost hourlong duration of the battle, with the best view possible of American soldiers in action against an armed and murderous enemy. He credits his having lived to tell the tale directly to those young troops.”

or this about BBC reporter Ben Brown:
“More recently, Ben was embedded with British troops in the Iraq war. Ben wrote about his experiences in a book, ‘The Battle for Iraq’, notably how a British soldier saved his life by opening fire on an Iraqi militiaman who was just about to shoot Ben in the back with a rocket-propelled grenade. He recounted how he elatedly kissed the gunner from the Irish Guards; “It was a natural reaction I suppose, but later I was rather disgusted with my delight. Reporters are supposed to be observers of the battlefield, not participants. I wondered if, by being so close to the British troops, I had somehow crossed an invisible line.”

Yeah, he crossed an invisible line- from idiocy to lucidity.

Like he would have been a non-participant when that RPG went off in his back? Right.

Of course there’s no absolute “principle of journalistic non-interference” and as I myself pointed out, I agree that it clearly shouldn’t trump every other consideration. And, equally obviously, it’s not something that can in fact be practiced perfectly, as reporting a story changes the story no matter how objective you try to be. But I strongly disagree that this is just some sort of vague “guideline” — particularly with war reporting, it’s a principle that many reporters and photographers really adhere to very strongly, whether you agree with it or not. And I also think it’s ludicrous to suggest that this principle has no effect on the safety of reporters in a war zone. There are many examples of reporters being allowed to get interviews with people who would kill them in an instant if they were an American soldier. It’s simply a fact that the non-interference reputation of journalists helps them do their job and helps to save their lives in tough situations. Obviously this is something that has to be balanced against saving lives (as I myself said) but it’s hardly a “change of subject” — this is what is at issue in the hypothetical situation Neo outlined above. It’s not a matter of Jennings being afraid to sacrifice his life (as McLovin suggested) nor is it just a matter of reporters wanting to “get the scoop” for personal reasons only — it IS a principle which has some value in protecting journalistic access, and while it’s just one of many principles that have to be balanced, it’s not one that should be taken lightly, in my opinion.

Oh, give me a break. Obviously reporters can’t be entirely uninvolved in a story, the point is they try to be (and should try to be, up to a point). Reporters risk their lives every day in war zones and I for one am grateful to them for doing so. Trying to stay objective and uninvolved doesn’t mean they aren’t risking their lives to get the story. The fact that a reporter might get killed in a war zone is obvious, and has nothing to do with the issue here.

So does the “principle” of taking a tape recorder with you when you do interviews have some value in preserving journalistic details — so what?

Try to focus, here, Mitsu. The issue for Wallace and Jennings was, yes, the “hypothetical situation”; but the issue here — i.e., the topic of the post and the thread — was Wallace’s and Jennings’ response to the hypothetical, which you keep trying to ignore.

I think you’ve been given too many breaks. The fact that a reporter might get killed in a war zone — and is made safer by the troops that reporter is covering — is precisely relevant to the point that two prominent reporters announced that, given the opportunity, they would refuse to lift a finger to help those same troops. On the other hand, the idea that as a general rule, but one with lots of exceptions, reporters should try to stay out of their own stories as far as possible, is so trivially obvious that no one else has anything to say about it.

The point I am making is that principles are things that one adheres to even when it is difficult or personally uncomfortable. I’m sure most reporters have a lot of personal opinions about the stories they report on, and inevitably that colors their reporting — but they restrain themselves from getting involved even when they have strong opinions, and this to me elevates this “guideline” as you call it to the level of principle. For example, journalists have gone to jail to protect the confidentiality of their sources … that is a journalistic principle which has caused great discomfort to some journalists but they fight for it because otherwise the entire enterprise of a free press could potentially be threatened.

The same is the case with the principle of journalistic non-interference, so yes, I think you’re simply wrong to suggest this is in any way a sidetrack. It is what is at issue in this case.

The point is, above, both Neo and some of the commenters to this thread initially posted as though Wallace and Jennings were complete bastards who responded as they did for no reason whatsoever, except some sort of selfish desire to get a sensational story. I am saying that, while I might disagree with their response, there is a line they were trying not to cross, and it is a line that reporters shouldn’t cross except in extraordinary circumstances. So, one can disagree with them but it’s not as though what they said is based on completely selfish or entirely base motives. There is a journalistic principle at stake that deserves to be considered in any war reporting situation or reporting in general.

What are you talking about? Your comment is a total non-sequitur to what I was saying. I wasn’t talking about that, but the fact that douglas was claiming that the fact that a reporter might get killed in a war zone means he or she is already “involved” in the story he is trying to cover. I am saying that the fact that he might get killed is irrelevant to the principle that reporters should try to stay uninvolved in what they are covering. It has no bearing on that whatsoever. Your comments are valid but not what I was talking about at all.

The whole issue here, on the other hand, has to do with the moral and human line that Wallace and Jennings did cross in responding as they did, and whether that makes them “complete bastards”, or something less, or something worse.

Perhaps *you* understand this principle clearly, but I am responding to specific comments. For example, Neo wrote (and I want to say that on the whole, I find Neo’s writing quite lucid and rational — so this is not meant as a general criticism of her writing in general, but merely a comment I am raising in reply to something she wrote): ‘reporters elevating themselves and their profession into “journalists” who stand above such petty emotions as nationalism’ — similarly, another commenter wrote ‘In this case the journalists have placed themselves on Mt. Olympus. They are saying, “We are wiser and we kinow better than the citizens that have been elected to protect the country.”’

These comments seem to indicate that what is at issue is the reporters thinking of themselves as higher arbiters of ethics than, say, soldiers, but I think the situation is quite the reverse. Both Wallace and Jennings, like any of us, recognize the fact that not intervening to save lives would be an ethical lapse in any ordinary situation, but they are saying that reporters have a responsibility *not* in some sense to sacrifice even their own personal sense of morality in order to protect the principle of journalistic non-interference — to protect journalistic access in war situations, to avoid interfering with the story.

Again, as I’ve said numerous times — we may disagree with the call they made. But I don’t think these calls are easy to make.

So, while we can disagree with them in this hypothetical, I would say this: if it was a choice between staying uninvolved when they should be involved and getting overly involved, I’d rather have reporters erring on the side of staying uninvolved than the reverse, because I think overall staying uninvolved gives us better access to information out here than if reporters were getting involved too often with the situations they’re reporting on. Naturally, in a perfect world we’d want reporters to make the right ethical call in every circumstance — crossing the line when it was appropriate and not crossing it when it isn’t — but I’m simply saying I can understand Wallace’s attitude that it is better for reporters to avoid making that call altogether because if they start making these calls regularly, it could mean far too much involvement on the part of reporters, which would have a negative effect on reporting overall.

Reporters aren’t soldiers and we don’t need them to become soldiers, in other words. Yes, perhaps in this hypothetical they should become soldiers — but I’m not as shocked as some of you are that Wallace thinks the opposite. We already have soldiers on the field and we need reporters as well, to do a different job, in my view, on the whole.