Why news organizations should let their journalists blog

Read Kevin Sites' powerful blog entry about the circumstances under which he videotaped a U.S. marine killing a wounded insurgent in Fallujah.

MSNBC.com reports Sites' description of what happened in a factual manner (and shows the streaming video for free). But Sites' personal account of the moral and emotional issues he grappled with as he filmed the incident, then struggled with the implications of releasing the video, adds something to my understanding of the story that straight news reporting simply cannot give me. His blog post speaks to the context in which the video was shot and aired - and particularly, the reporter's personal relationships with the soldiers he was covering. It shows the beliefs and convictions that led Sites to release the video, despite the damage he knew it would do to the image of the people he had bonded with - and who he truly believes are good, well-meaning people on the whole. The conclusion of his post, addressed to the "Devil Dogs of the 3.1," is especially powerful:

So here, ultimately, is how it all plays out: when the Iraqi man in the mosque posed a threat, he was your enemy; when he was subdued he was your responsibility; when he was killed in front of my eyes and my camera -- the story of his death became my responsibility.

The burdens of war, as you so well know, are unforgiving for all of us.

Sites' blog post reveals what any professional reporter who has worked in difficult situations knows to be true: journalists are constantly making extremely subjective - and often angst-ridden - decisions about right and wrong when they cover controversial stories. By veiling this backstory from public knowledge we are depriving our readers and viewers of an important contextual framework through which to judge the information we're giving them. The best way to restore the public's faith in our work is to be more honest and transparent about why and how we report what we do... and even more importantly, how we're not always sure if we're doing the right thing in the heat of the moment.  In other words, we're human, and our reporting is the product of imperfect human minds and emotions. What better way to do this than by allowing journalists to blog? 

Comments

[me]

I understand what you said about the stress and pressures that a journalist under distress must face, and I not only sympathize with them but support and understand them completely. What I don't get is that while people empathize with the reporter for being under pressure, they seem to forget that the soldier there is also not having a cup o' tea in the garden. To acknowledge that the reporter is under extreme stress in that situation, but to not give the same leeway to the soldier who fears for his life is beneath you. Surely you understand that the reporter wasn't the only one dancing on his toes that day..

[Rebecca]

Thanks for your comment.
I do not think that this blog post belittles the stress experienced by soldiers. I think the military blogs are a great development and I hope DoD will allow them to continue... they give voice to what U.S. servicepeople are going through in a way no other medium can. I also agree, journalists don't generally do a good job at characterizing the emotional life of soldiers. Which is why it is great to hear directly from the soldiers themselves about their experiences.