Questions about "Incredible Courage"


More on the NYT moves towards irrelevance...

Many of the uber-bloggers (LGF, Michelle Malkin, Powerline) have already covered the story of how the NYT has decided that it is somehow courageous for one of its own to hang-out with scumbags while in the act of targeting the military forces of the United States.

A sniper loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr fires towards U.S. positions in the cemetery in Najaf, Iraq.
Michele McNally: "Right there with the Mahdi army. Incredible courage."

Now what about this example is courageous? Is the photog, Joao Silva, courageous because at any moment the Mahdi Army whackos could kill him for being an infidel? Or is he courageous because at any moment the room he is sharing with an enemy sniper could come under a fusillade of fire from US troops? What exactly defines courage in this example Mizz McNally?

Lets also take this one step further. What if that room had drawn return fire from US troops, and what if Mr. Silva had been killed as a result? What would the NYT say in that instance? Would they fan the flames of scandal because US troops had killed a journalist?

What would it be Mizz McNally? You freely disregard the lives of your own country's servicemen for the sake of publishing a good picture, but would you vilify them if they defended themselves and accidentally killed the human embodiment of your disregard?

Just something I'd like to know....

UPDATE: In case you might be wondering what side the media might be on sometimes, lets take a look at what they actually say about situations just like the one with the photo above....

"Pinch" Sulzberger:
“Pinch was a political activist in the Sixties, and was twice arrested in anti-Vietnam protests. One day, the elder Sulzberger asked his son what Pinch calls, "the dumbest question I've ever heard in my life." If an American soldier runs into a North Vietnamese soldier, which would you like to see get shot? Young Arthur answered, "I would want to see the American get shot. It's the other guy's country." Some Sixties activists have since thought better of their early enthusiasms. Pinch hasn't.”

Mike Wallace:
“…on an edition of the PBS panel series Ethics in America, devoted to war coverage, which was taped at Harvard in late 1987, Mike Wallace proclaimed that if he were traveling with enemy soldiers he would not warn U.S. soldiers of an impending ambush. “Don't you have a higher duty as an American citizen to do all you can to save the lives of soldiers rather than this journalistic ethic of reporting fact?", moderator Charles Ogletree Jr. suggested. Without hesitating, Wallace responded: "No, you don't have higher duty...you're a reporter." When Brent Scrowcroft, the then-future National Security Adviser, argued that "you're Americans first, and you're journalists second," Wallace was mystified by the concept, wondering "what in the world is wrong with photographing this attack by [the imaginary] North Kosanese on American soldiers?”

Just wonderful... I guess it is OK when you belong to the high-priesthood.

Posted: Sun - July 16, 2006 at 12:29 PM          


©