My Photo

July 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Sign Up Now

Become a Fan

« American Standard: People Repellent | Main | Square The Back: Barbershop Reviews »



It's irresponsible of Reporters Without Borders to compare deaths of journalists in Iraq with those in Vietnam, and for you to accept it at face value. Isn't twisting facts to support a view something characteristic of conservatives and something you rail against? During the course of 20 years, there were an estimated 600 or so journalists covering Vietnam. 63 died. At the start of the latest Iraq war in March '03 there were over 3,000 reporters covering the war. Between March 18 and April 14, 2003 15 journalist types were killed. 63/600 and 15/3000 is not at all a reasonable comparison. Even if there were no unique journalist types who entered Iraq since April 14, 2003 you're looking at 66/3000 journalist deaths. Which is deadlier, the 10.5% Vietnam journalist death rate or the 2.2% (or lower) Iraq rate?

That doesn't explain why there's not wall-to-wall coverage of every aspect of the war like you might hope to see, but Reporters Without Borders doesn't take a position on that in the link you provided.



DaBrettman, I'm glad you find a 2.3% reporter deathrate in the 21st century more acceptable than a 10.5% reporter deathrate in the 20th Century.

I think the death of 66 journalists in just over 2 years pretty appalling.

But hey, if you want to look at this as a success for reporters, go ahead.

The comments to this entry are closed.