>> It’s difficult for me to generate any feelings of sympathy for members of the media that get killed over there. Sure, some aren’t MSM slime, but so many are that it’s difficult to keep track (like there’s some kind of 50/50 balance). Not wishing violent death on ‘journalists’ you understand, just not bothered by it when they become the victims.
I see it a little bit as an “assumption of risk”. Military men put themselves in the line of fire out of patriotism, duty, and honor. They fight for a cause ... and when they die, they die with honor and the respect of a grateful nation who realizes that their sacrifice will save the lives of many American civilians. They toil in anonymity for the betterment of their country.
Journalists assume the same risk as a soldier. They voluntarily go into a war-zone with the knowledge that they could very well not return. But, generally speaking, they do so for no higher cause ... they serve only the interests of fame and fortune. They want to be loved, known and given awards. They are self-aggrandizing, rather than serving their country.
There are exceptions, of course — like Tony Snow, for instance. Brit Hume. Bret Baier. Tim Russert. These are honorable men who understand that they owe their very “freedom of the press” to the soldiers they cover.
Those journalists who would equate their sacrifice with that of a soldier, simply because of the known danger, misunderstand the sacrifice of a soldier.
H
Perhaps this is true of TV news journalist maybe even news paper journalist.
I can not however see how this would be true of photo and TV Camera journalist.
Awards and public acclaim is rare for photo journalist today and even more rare for TV camera men.
There is the Pulitzer Prize for photo journalism but I can not think of one for TV cameramen.
The only famous TV camera man I can remember is the one that died with that Senator that got gunned down by the Jimmy Jones Cult. But I can’t remember his name.
So I don’t think I can agree with you on this fame and fortune motive for camera men.
And for what ever they are getting paid it isn’t likely to be enough in my opinion. But then I don’t think soldiers are paid enough either.
1. Journalist do not accept the same risk as active military personnel involved in combat. The reason? Military people are engaging the enemy in active fashion and have to take risks far higher in direct exposure to hostile fire. Journalists, OTOH, if at the direct front, for the most part monitor action from cover. Occasionally some do take the same risks (i.e., riding in a Hummer) but on the whole act as passive observers from the relative luxury of cover not possible for men in assault situations.
2. Journalists often act to aid the enemy and to hinder or subvert the advantages of our military. We all can remember the slimebag that shot video of the Marine that shot the Taliban creep that presented a possible threat even though he was down and wounded. Marine ruling - justified. The videographer deliberately filmed the Marine and used the film to smear the Marines and the military in general. Secondly, there have been numerous ‘journalists’ that gleefully sought out and aired film, interviews and combat documentation with our nation's enemies in this war and others. Let's not forget Mike Wallace and his hypocritical stance that he wouldn't interfere with a Viet Cong ambush of American soldiers if he could get the scoop. Many other scumbag MSM types have done just that in this war.
3. Complete agreement on the pity of the untimely deaths of numerous, genuine, AMERICANS involved in the journalistic trade. They will be missed. Guys like Dan Rather, Mike Wallace, Walter Cronkite and others will not. In fact, their demise (careerwise and in body) is reason to be heartened that one more enemy of freedom no longer needs to be contended with.