Not All Journalists Are Created Equal

When I read about a journalist being killed in Iraq early this morning, I initially did not bother to chase the story. I did speculate about his death. I wondered about whether he was interviewing terrorists or had coincidently "arrived" just in time to witness an attack and was hit with cross fire. Ever wonder how journalists always seem to be ready for the attacks before the targets?

But as we all know, people are dying every day in Iraq. As coarse as it is to say, one gets use to the headlines, even if the actual story, once heard, is moving. So stick to the headlines unless you want to feel something.

Well, I found out a little about the guy later in the day. His name is Steven Vincent. I want you to go to this blog post and read some of his words. An excerpt:

Words matter. Words convey moral clarity. Without moral clarity, we will not succeed in Iraq. That is why the terms the press uses to cover this conflict are so vital. For example, take the word "guerillas." As you noted, mainstream media sources like the New York Times often use the terms "insurgents" or "guerillas" to describe the Sunni Triangle gunmen, as if these murderous thugs represented a traditional national liberation movement. But when the Times reports on similar groups of masked reactionary killers operating in Latin American countries, they utilize the phrase "paramilitary death squads." Same murderers, different designations. Yet of the two, "insurgents" and especially "guerillas" has a claim on our sympathies that "paramilitaries" lacks. This is not semantics: imagine if the media routinely called the Sunni Triangle gunmen "right wing paramilitary death squads." Not only would the description be more accurate, but it would offer the American public a clear idea of the enemy in Iraq. And that, in turn, would bolster public attitudes toward the war.

Read it all, as some guy says.