Conundrum

Though I am not a subscriber to relativism, and do believe that the words "right" and "wrong" have substance, coming to a conclusion as to what always is right and wrong is not so easy.  Sometimes principles clash, and weighing where lines should be drawn is murky at best.

In these posts at Power Line, the Pulitzer Prize winning Iraqi photo of an assasination is analyzed in depth by an expert photographer from the NY Times.  The photographer attempts to discern the facts surrounding the conditions under which the photographer took the picture.

Why does this matter?  Why shouldn't we simply care about whether or not the photograph itself was worthy of the Pulitzer?

This Washington Times column presents some of the underlying reasons why this is such an important issue.

We would find it unacceptable if the Associated Press, a cooperative of which this newspaper is a member, were to cultivate ties to al Qaeda like those Al Jazeera cultivates with terrorists. The difference is one of degree (but an important degree). Should bearers of the openness and the free exchange of information that enable free societies to stay that way consort with people who would destroy those societies? If not, then should we change the rules in the age of terrorism?

How far should a journalist go to get a story?  What boundaries should there be between story and story teller?  When does a journalist leave his role as reporter and become "part of the action?"

I don't have the answers.  I only know that the questions should be asked - and both questions and answers are significant.

Comments

[Justin]

Right and wrong are usually clear, but under strained circumstances, both go out the window. Mandela talked alot about that in his autobio. He talked about his choice to use terrorism and violence to lead his people to freedom. So let us judge not.

[Thrasher]

True Justin,

For eample one could call Israel's troops terrorists and suicide bombers PLO troops...