dangerous incident in Iraq, posted a comment here:
For him to give thanks for divine intervention was not his way of being glad someone else got shot of instead of him. It was just his way of being grateful he didn't get shot -- for whatever the reason.
Regardless of how I perceived Martz's article, I'm impressed with the journalists who went to Iraq. Matthew McAllester of Newsday, one of five tossed into prison under suspicion of espionage, wrote a first-person account Sunday that illustrates the insane risk undertaken by war correspondents: Eight Days in an Iraqi Prison.
Embeds are just free-lancers who found an oppurtunity to cover the war in real-time. They are adrenaline junkies. Though, they had a choice: They didn't have to go into harm's way.
Spoken like a person who truly doesn't have a clue. While it's true that some journalists, freelance or otherwise, love the adrenaline rush, most of them have a genuine interest in delivering good stories to the general public. Sometimes to raise awareness, sometimes to enlighten, sometimes to anger, and sometimes simply to inform. While the embedded journalists in Iraq had a choice, they were not allowed to carry weapons, and the ones I know didn't even receive extra pay. I don't know about most people, but it would take more than an adrenaline rush to keep me in an area where missiles, grenades, and bullets were flying all around me.
The Eight Days in an Iraqi Prison piece was great. Thanks for posting the link.
When I was working in journalism I knew a few reporters who covered war zones, and for them it was generally a mixture of altruism, adrenaline, and insanity. I never understood the impulse, myself, but I've developed a severe allergy to risk.