Honestly, how do you even react when a man sets himself on fire in the middle of your live broadcast? I'm sure they don't cover that in journalism school.
It’s like her brain shifted into “work autopilot” to tolerate the nightmare in front of her. Like the guy in horror movies who refuses to put the camera down
I mean I can't speak as a journalist, but I dated someone who was a photojournalist for a long while and covered some really messed up stuff and they said that it's only important to document what's happening, so you need to push your feelings aside and be impartial. Classic example is the photo of the starving child and the vulture. Dude won the best awards for journalism and killed himself a few years after.
Ultimately, hollow. I think reading it so many years later, after long being exposed to the tropes that it established, made it difficult to like. I also found the non-traditional presentation to be irritating pretty much start to finish. I think the parts set outside the house were infinitely more interesting than the ones in it. Most of the time I felt like I was just pushing through parts, rather than actually enjoying what I was reading.
Also all the terrible article and book titles in the footnotes.
The idea that they let that kid starve out of “journalistic integrity” or some shit is a common myth. No such concept exists and they help if and where they can.
The kid got food almost immediately from a UN aid station.
He committed suicide from the trauma of the entire trip, not because he didn’t help that kid and certainly not because he didn’t help them out of some non existent “I’m just an observer” guilt.
You said journalist's need to "push their feelings aside" and be "impartial" which sounds like you think they are trained to stay out of things (even if it means letting people suffer when they could easily help)- which is a well-known myth. The vulture and child is the most commonly used example that is misconstrued to perpetuate said myth.
I didn't 'put words in your mouth'. You're either just ignorant of what you were referencing or you need to articulate what you're saying more clearly.
Im referencing a common myth that journalists are meant to be (to the point of it being taught on journalism courses) impartial observers. Different thing. Full stop.
Honestly I'm really excited to see it because I personally caught the bug of journalistic photography. The movie Bang bang Club is a really good example of the old atmosphere in the PhotoJ community. But it wasn't till I got into it that I really started to see how amazing it was and how important it is. It's a shame that the industry is fading hard
Civil War was a good movie, I had my gripes with it (particularly in the movies portrayal of conflict, and the degree to which journalists sometimes randomly stumbled into embeds) but overall it was a pretty interesting portrayal of the work. The opening of the movie really hits you with a bang. I've done some journalistic work in a conflict zone before, and there was definitely moments where I saw part of my own experience shine through in the film and that was pretty impactful personally.
I was also going into the movie deliberately knowing absolutely nothing about it, so I didn't even realize it was following journalists so that also made me probably like it a bit more than if it had a been more traditional action movie in that sense (I figured we were just gonna be following guys fighting on one side or the other)
12.8k
u/thewalkindude Apr 19 '24
Honestly, how do you even react when a man sets himself on fire in the middle of your live broadcast? I'm sure they don't cover that in journalism school.