Re: Daniel Pearl is NOT dead

["Dan Billings" <dib9@gwi.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Donna Halper" <dlh@donnahalper.com>
To: "Dan Billings" <dib9@gwi.net>
Cc: <boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: Daniel Pearl is NOT dead


> While the media do in fact
> disproportionately cover what western countries and western journalists
do,
> for me the importance of this story relates to how the media have had a
> very difficult time gaining access, as they also did during the Gulf
> War.

What does that have to do with Mr. Pearl?  He was in Pakistan, which the
last I knew, was not controlled by the U.S. military.

>The military and the current administration have greatly restricted
> where journalists can go,

Not really.  There have been reporters running all over Afghanistan since
even before any American troops arrived.  What the military has done is
refused, in most situations, to take reporters along on military operations.
Reporters have been allowed, at their own risk, to travel around
Afghanistan.  The military has limited the ability of reporters to travel
with U.S. troops.  Personally, I do not believe the military has any
obligation to take the media along.

>  And the public needs to know that those who
> take on the responsibility of covering the news sometimes catch
assignments
> that are neither glamorous nor safe.  Finding out what it happening in the
war on
> terrorism is a story that affects us all.  Mr. Pearl was trying to get us
> that information.  His death would send a chilling message about the
> lengths terrorists will go to prevent their identities and methods from
> being known.

Agreed, but I do not think the media's sacrifice is any greater than that of
the members of our military or of relief workers in the area.  All have made
the choice to put themselves at risk for the greater good.  However, our
media seems to value their own sacrifice more.

-- Dan Billings, Bowdoinham, Maine