What's More Important: Your Family or "Getting the Big Story?"

by Linda Sharp

I was asked recently, as a writer, if I would go to Iraq to cover the war if the opportunity presented itself. Would I jump at the chance to embed myself in a tank and run straight to the front lines to report the war as it happens? Would I consider it a great career move?

My answer was an unequivocal NO times three.

Forget the fact that my writing forte is editorial, not reportorial in nature. Ignore that I missed the deadline to volunteer and train for embed status. And turn a blind eye to the fact that a sandstorm and my hairdo just do not have anything in common.

My reason is more basic; it goes to the heart of and perhaps redefines, the words "responsible journalism.”

I am a parent. And there would be nothing responsible in this journalist running to Iraq and away from the three children who need me more than does "the story."

Over the past week, we have lost two talented, prolific, longtime journalists who traveled to Iraq to "get the story" and bring it into our living rooms. Michael Kelly, well-known, well regarded editor-at-large of the Atlantic Monthly, died when the Humvee in which he was traveling fell into a canal. And high profile, respected reporter/weekend anchor for NBC's Today Show, David Bloom, died of a pulmonary embolism while covering the front lines with the 3rd Infantry Division.

Both were men for whom journalism ran in their blood. Both were men who were known within their field and throughout the world as straightforward, reliable newsmen. Both were men who were dedicated to getting the story firsthand and reporting it first rate. Both were men who embraced the opportunity to join the troops and dodge the bullets in order to keep the American public informed and involved.

Both men were fathers.

Between them, they leave behind two wives and five very young children. The wives will find some level of comfort in the platitudes of "He died doing what he loved," and/or "He was never more alive than when he was ‘on the story'." These will remain empty words, with no meaning for the children whose only understanding is that their fathers are never coming home again.

When we become parents, we must become much more cognizant of our own mortality. The frivolousness of youth is cast off in the face of a tiny person whose every breath depends on us. Life is taken randomly enough in the form of accidental death; certain activities should be crossed off the list simply because of the potential for harm or worse. Skydiving, bungee jumping and race car driving come directly to mind. To that list add live combat reporting.

While Katie Couric waxes rhapsodic about how much these two gentlemen "loved their wives, adored their children, were ‘in love’ with their families," and I have no doubt they did and were, it runs in contradiction to truths proudly quoted by Tim Russert about David Bloom: "You couldn't keep him away from a story. He begged to be able to go to Iraq."

Iraq is dangerous and frightening enough for the military troops for whom the deployment is mandatory. However, they enlist knowing the risks of combat, the consequences of mortar fire, the possibility that if sent into battle, they may not return. Iraq is a volunteer assignment for the six hundred reporters embedded within these brave fighting men and women. Do they accurately comprehend the danger, or are they perhaps blinded by the opportunity to prove their journalistic grit by being covered in realistic grit while reporting from the front lines? Perhaps Michael Kelly's own comment offers much in the way of an answer, "There is some element of danger, but you're surrounded by an Army, literally, who is going to try very hard to keep you out of danger."

Forgive me, but doesn't the Army have enough to do simply fighting this war?

There is no argument that the embeds have done an outstanding job in utilizing modern technology to bring this war into our homes around the clock. (David Bloom actually created the advanced Bloom-mobile in order to have an edge over the competition.) It is to their credit that citizens around the globe have a much more accurate picture of combat, and in turn, a much more impassioned, informed opinion of this war.

Maybe, just maybe, that will be of some comfort to, and source of pride for, the children of Michael Kelly and David Bloom – someday when they are old enough to actually read the stories their fathers reported.

~Linda Sharp
http://www.lindasharp.com

Reader Reply

The Charge of the Light Brigade was celebrated as an act of heroism, which for the men involved, it was.

As a tactical act it will go down as one of extreme incompetence.

These were the days when families could picnic and watch the progress of a battle.

I wonder how the accounts of the casual watcher and the 'embedded' reporter would have differed.

There can never be an impartial account of war. It will always be a dirty, nasty business even when ousting the worst kind of dictator.

My Grandfather was 30 when in 1914 he volunteered for active service. By 1918 and the end of the war he had been decorated several times for acts of bravery. He was one of the lucky ones to have even survived.

The war over he found himself on the French beaches along with several hundred others. They waited six weeks without supplies before setting off for home by whatever means they could.

Having no authorisation to go home they were all arrested for desertion. At the time this merited the firing squad. (A volunteer remember).

Had the press not intervened then they would almost certainly been shot. They reported the scandal and saved the men's' lives but not their pensions.

Perhaps the press should concentrate a little more on this kind of war. The issue of 'friendly fire' for example.

~Philip Jones