Reader Tom Mangan writes:
I can’t help reminding you that Western journalists have suffered more
combat casualties than the military they are covering.
I work in a newsroom and people much like me (though braver) have been
killed trying to cover this war. Others merely maimed for life. That is,
DEAD, daddy not coming home, mommy applying for the life insurance, etc.
I’m not saying news people are owed any special protection from satire,
I’m just saying that your MASH metaphor is tasteless and offensive to
the friends and families of the dead and wounded.
Humor at the expense of the dead works if it’s say, the former dictator
of Spain. It’s not funny when it’s regular people with regular jobs who
got killed trying to earn their paycheck. You wouldn’t ridicule the
firefighters killed on Sept. 11, though I’m sure there would be
opportunities for humor if you were properly twisted.
He’s right, and in fact I have pointed this out (that the press casualties have in fact been higher than military, which is more of a commentary on how competent the military campaign is than how high the press casualties are). But I was not satirizing those brave journalists who are actually on the front line really covering the war and have in fact been seriously injured or killed–I was going after the armchair media generals back in the states and other countries, and specific people like Ted Rall and Robert Fisk (the latter of whom was not a war casualty per se, but was simply subject to a mugging, and who have also been mercilessly and justifiably pummeled by others). I thought that this would be obvious, but if it wasn’t, I hope it’s clear now.