Sometimes, the Perpetually Aggrieved are just plain boring.
Why are there no peace correspondents?

War correspondents are omnipresent on cable news networks—in fact, they're the superstars of TV journalism. Anchors are just a pretty face, perched on swivel chairs and shuffling papers on top of laminate countertops. The war correspondent, however, plays the role of the beautiful, disheveled hero brazenly sending dispatches from a conflict zone.
When it comes time to propose alternatives, though, you get a bundle of earnestness combined with a lack of imagination.
We need peace correspondents—Anderson Coopers that update the public on the status of peace, with as much passion, panache and gravity as they update us on the status of our wars.

We need fewer interviews with five-star military generals on Sunday Morning talk shows, and more interviews with the Mareid Maguires, Leymah Gbowees, and other unsung heros who advocate for concord over conflict.

We need journalists embedded with organizations with Women for Afghan Women, the Free Gaza movement, and Code Pink in addition to U.S. Military units.

When wartime is over, we need reporters to send dispatches from the field, showing what it's like to have families whole and together, lives restored, and money spent on more fruitful endeavors than bloodshed—and how all those gains can all so quickly disappear, as they did ten years ago.
OK, fine, a some Nobel Laureates who might have actually faced down Death rather than (cough) made a movie or just got elected can add perspective, if of that rather earnest form that placates the Perpetually Aggrieved.

Doesn't the food correspondent or the sports reporter or the person who covers the P.T.A. (or files a story from the N.M.R.A. show) also qualify?

No comments: