But the key here is that she wanted to do "real journalism" on "socially significant" stories.
The plight of baby seals, but not abortion/breast cancer risks... The "hard life" of Palistinians living in Israel, but not the fear that Israelis have of their children getting bombed on a school bus. GWB's supposed drunk driving in 1974, but not the comments and feelings of the servicemen who served with John Kerry in Vietnam.
Who gets to decide what is "socially significant"?
Excellent points. We could go on and on:
- Headline stories about the wonders of "Holistic Medicine" and "Karbaalah", but not the persecution of Christians in the Sudan, North Korea, and China.
- Incessant stories about car bombings in Baghdad, and not one story about the schools built, hospitals with new equipment, jobs created, or Iraqis celebrating their new freedoms.
- Story after story about the thrills of "Gay Marriage", and not one about the level of suicide, violence, STDs, drug abuse in the homosexual community. (Or the fact that the average life expectancy of a homosexual man is 43.)