I was reading comments about the Woodruff story (the ABC anchor who got injured in Iraq). Currently his name is associated with what Americans call ‘The Cronkite moment’: particulary, since more reporters have been questioning their own reporting about Iraq. CNN’s Amanpour, for example, offered this (chilling) point of view of the state of Iraq:
“The war in Iraq has basically turned out to be a disaster and journalists have paid for it, paid for the privilege of witnessing and reporting that and so have many, many other people who have been there.”
Over in the right corner of the blogosphere, it appears that the best defense in this matter is to attack the messenger, as for example Hugh Hewitt did a couple of days ago. Some word of advice:
But courage is not an indication of intelligence or depth of character. A thick passport and an accent may impress the Davos gang, but really, read her work or listen to her speeches. They are at a level of a college kid blissfully unaware of the world he or she has not personally seen.
Travel can blind and often does the traveller the key admonition to know what you don’t know.
I just missed the logic: Courage != intelligence. Travel == evil. Somebody should have warned Columbus in 1492: What’s the point of exploring and reporting about the shape of the earth and overseas continents, if you can do it from your comfortable deskchair in your pyamas?