Re: Daniel Pearl

[Donna Halper <dlh@donnahalper.com>]

>Sean wrote--
>However, as Dan Billings mentioned in another reply, does Daniel Pearl's
>death deserve more attention than those of Mikey Spann, or other Americans
>who have died in this conflict? I say no. Of course, you may think I'm
>comparing apples to oranges.

I actually think you made my point.  The so-called "American Taliban"-- who 
got his own share of wall to wall coverage-- was present when Mr Spann was 
killed, and rumour had it that the Afghani or Pakistani or whoever police 
not only didn't help Mr Spann but gave arms to those prisoners trying to 
escape.  But other sources say this is not what happened at all, and is the 
"official version" being put forth to hide how disorganised the whole 
prisoner of war effort in Afghanistan really was and how our so-called 
allies weren't as helpful as we thought they'd be-- in other words, we 
trusted the wrong people.  There have been some massive failures in our 
intelligence community, and there again, Daniel Pearl was one of those 
trying to get to the heart of the story, and he died trying to inform 
us.  Who deserves more coverage is a question for people far wiser than I 
am.  Should Princess Diana have gotten almost two weeks of wall to wall 
coverage?  How about those 5 days of "Skate-Gate" this past week?  I think 
WBZ Radio had just the right balance of coverage on Danny Pearl's death, 
and they continued to do other stories as well.  But let's face it-- in the 
world today, the media ARE part of the story, and names like Dan Rather or 
Ted Koppel or even Barbara Walters are as well known as the names of the 
generals and the heads of state.  No, Danny Pearl wasn't a 'big name" but 
he was covering the 'big story'.  May he rest in peace, and may somebody 
else pick the story up and live to tell it.