Does anyone besides me wonder why it's front page news when an anchor is wounded, but the fact that more than 80 others have been killed gets little to no attention? Or why we don't hear more about the thousands of wounded servicemen and women, and those who suffer PTSD and other emotional problems after their service ends?
It's not that we shouldn't care about Woodruff. I just wish it wasn't instead of seeing the larger context of threats to all journalists and servicepeople.
Posted by binky at January 30, 2006 11:29 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Media | WarPictures + fame of course.
If we actually got footage of the caskets or something like that I think the TV media would cover the deaths and woundings more often - but the Bush administration doesn't want that.
Plus Woodruff is a network anchor. People know him, or think they do, therefore stories on him will get more coverage than regular old Sgt. Joe Schmoe that millions don't know.
Of course I know you know these things Binky. I mean can you imagine the media frenzy if, say, Britney and Kevin Federline were hit by a bomb in Iraq?
Posted by: Armand at January 30, 2006 11:47 AM | PERMALINKI think it's specifically because the people in the news business know him, or know people who know him, or at least identify themselves as members of his tribe. There's a whole romantic myth in the news business around the 'war correspondent' -- an awful lot of people in the news business would love to be able to say that they had reported from a war zone. Those that do -- particularly when they are high-profile types who choose to -- get extra esteem and attention.
Posted by: jacflash at January 30, 2006 01:34 PM | PERMALINKIt's also because the attack was against someone who is "known" (in a public sense). The 2300 or so dead (and 15000 or so wounded) have all been names, not faces in a larger cultural context. Once something happens to someone who is a (moderately) public figure, people can focus on it more.
It's the same reason people care about Hollywood divorces, but can't care at all about the national divorce rate.
Posted by: baltar at January 30, 2006 01:47 PM | PERMALINKit's also why the Tillman story had the legs that it did.
Posted by: moon at January 30, 2006 02:34 PM | PERMALINKGood point, moon; I had forgotten about that.
Posted by: baltar at January 30, 2006 02:35 PM | PERMALINKSorry. I know all those reasons why. I guess I was asking the more existential, question "why can we only care when it's someone famous" or "why can't we be this concerned for every mother's son or daughter who is injured in the war?"
Posted by: binky at January 30, 2006 02:42 PM | PERMALINKThis Boston Globe article sheds a bit more light on the war correspondent romance thing.
Posted by: jacflash at February 3, 2006 09:27 AM | PERMALINK