[Previous entry: "Quote style"] [Next entry: "Iraqi Myths Dispelled"]

04/22/2004: "Paris Match Protects Sources"

Steven Den Beste "roundly condemned the magazine Paris Match for having reporters observe attempts by Iraqi insurgents to shoot down an American jet using SAMs." (Quote from a later discussion.) In the initial post, Mr. Den Beste surmises "that Paris Match editor-in-chief Alain Genestar is a brazen liar when he says they're not sympathizing with the insurgency."

I disagree. Not so much about Paris Match -- as bad as any bias may be, I am biased enough to think the French care more for leur independence des Etats Unis than for the people of Iraq. But I do think it ok for reporters to cover the activities of our enemies.

Let me argue with a hypothetical example. Suppose one of our enemies calls one of our reporters and says, "We are going to attack your side. Would you like to bear witness?" How should the reporter respond? More importantly, how will the reporter's response affect our enemies? How will the response affect us?

The reporter's decision may affect our enemy. Terrorists attack us because they think we are weak; they think that if we see enough bloodshed, we will get tired of cringing and accede to their demands. They invite reporters because reporters bring their atrocities into our lives. To the extent that bad reports petrify us, we need to change. We cannot continue to grow as a people if we are continually right-sizing our blinders. In the land of the blind, the most glib win elections.

I prefer a society where we recognize that the world sometimes presents uneasy choices, that sometimes short term sacrifice is the best way to achieve long term security and prosperity. Our greatest blessing is our ability to think. Uninformed thinking is mental masturbation. Reporters inform us. Reporters in dangerous, alien situations inform us the most. We need to keep them there.