Network news stable despite troop increase (Iraq too dangerous)

[sabra]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3i95043aea00b1bb5d26802ddf07a39162

Network news stable despite troop increase

NEW YORK -- President Bush's decision Wednesday to send up to 20,000 more combat troops to Iraq isn't likely to change much on the ground immediately for TV journalists covering the deadly war, and the buildup won't be matched by an increase in reporters covering the story.

"It's an incredibly dangerous place, and it's very, very difficult to do the kinds of stories that you would want to do," CBS News vp Paul Friedman said. "Not only is it dangerous for our people but it's often dangerous for the people we come in contact with because one faction or another will accuse them of being in collusion."

...

"We can't drive up every highway, we're not in every town and every city, and that's been the case for a while now," said CNN International President Chris Cramer.

...

"It's a very untenable situation," ABC News senior vp Paul Slavin said. "It's dangerous enough when you're not actively in a firefight. ... Generally speaking, it's not something we're comfortable with right now."

[Demit]

1. I wonder are news orgs in other countries expressing the same trepidation.

I'm torn here. No doubt it is extremely dangerous in Iraq, and casualties amongst the press in this war are ferociously high, so I understand the motive to be cautious. At the same time, I am suspicious that the networks are only too eager to collude in a shutdown of information coming out of the war zones. It dovetails too conveniently with the administration's wish to control the dissemination of information to the American public.

It used to be that reporters were adventurers, and knew that war was their best chance to make a name for themselves. That still might be true for print reporters. I hope. Maybe it's just the glorified hairdos in TV News who are just as happy to mind their corporate masters and stay home.