Sunday, February 20, 2011

Journalists in war zones

The disturbing news about the assault of CBS reporter Lara Logan raises the question of how far journalists should go to cover a story. The presence of people like her gave audiences a viewpoint unattainable without their presence; but is it worth the risks? Kim Barker's editorial in today's New Yorl Times argues that despite the dangers hearing female voices is especially important from dangerous places.

Meanwhile, it seems that Al-Jazeera, despite the kudos it's been receiving for how it covered the Egyptian revolution, refuses to discuss the assault on Logan. I guess cultural taboos are still infiltrating their coverage.


  1. I feel conflicted about Barker's article. On one hand, it seems like a huge step backwards to say that women reporters should be kept out of potentially dangerous situations. On the other hand, Barker doesn't really propose any kind of solution that would prevent terrible things like what happened to Lara Logan from happening again. And un-feminist or not, is it ok for editors to decide to choose the reporter who is least likely to face personal danger for a particular assignment? Would we send an obviously Jewish reporter into a Palestinian village? Or a black journalist to report on a white supremacy group?

  2. Not only will Al-Jazeera not discuss it but many of the media news outlets that constantly attack conservatives for supposedly being sexists refuse to give any airtime to this story afraid that they may God forbid "insult" the arabs if they accuse them of being sexist.