Well, permit me to comment on possible objections to my question.
Pyle was with a front-line American military unit. Foley was not. Foley was on his own. But does that mean no journalist should cover a story unless the American military is involved?
Pyle's America was in a declared war. Foley's America was not. But again, does that mean no journalist should cover a story unless there is a declared war?
Bottom line (unless I see hard evidence to the contrary): Both Pyle and Foley were brave men dedicated to their professions. Both men took risks, and both men lost.
Covering a story while “embedded” with the enemy isn’t necessarily “bright” and at worst would constitute the so called “journalist” an “enemy combatant” as far as I can see.
Bravery? In this case, it sounds more like he was a sympathizer who thought that rooting for his ultimate executioners would probably keep him safe. He gambled and lost hard. Bravery and stupidity go hand in hand in many cases and in this case I’m not even sure bravery would be an applicable tag.
In the end, he made an entirely stupid choice and underestimated the savagery of those who ultimately killed him. Play a stupid game, win stupid prizes.
Besides, what good in this day and age does his so called “reporting” do? IS is more than happy to take their own videos and such and display them to the world.
Foley seems more and more to not have been some dedicated journalist but an active participant in the conflict that rages in that area. Have a look at his tweets and perhaps that will shed a different outlook upon his motivations. He isn’t the honest, hard working, dedicated neutral “reporter” in any way as far as I’m concerned.
He put himself in a bad situation by his own devices and payed for his stupid mistake(s) with his life. He got exactly what he deserved.