Author: Jalynn Thompson (Page 2 of 2)

I found the first story about Pentagon cover ups about the role of Airstrikes in civilian casualties particularly interesting.  I think the journalist did a good job of exposing the way that they knowingly put civilians at risk and the ways that they justify their deaths.  The most striking to me is that they viewed the loss of Civilian life as most important to avoid from a strategic standpoint and then legal and moral viewpoints.  To see people in such an inhumane way is difficult to understand or comprehend.  The journalist also did well to talk about how the conception of air strikes ways in the conscience of the American citizens.  We do not live in the war zones that our countries inhabit and so it is very easy to forget the reality for the Army.  But then we think about how they portray air strikes as lowering the death count because US citizens do not have to go into these war zones and they can be remotely triggered.  But then as the articles shows there are so many flaws in this system.  Like how they decided to conduct these airstrikes is through limited intelligence and assessment of the areas.  As one put it the air strikes don’t make the bombings more accurate or safer for those around but instead make it possible to conduct more air strikes in places they could not reach before. It was clear from the people that the journalist spoke to that they tried to make excuses but even “the fog of war” can explain the deliberate choice to ignore the pitfalls of airstrikes and proceed with this course of war.

I think the second part of story was extremely important to humanizing and bringing to light the stories of the people who were victims of the bombings.  While people can state the death count of incidents or the overall war I think it can be hard in such a desensitized world for people to comprehend the severity. Unfortunately death is becoming more frequent and it is news that sells so it is often highly covered in the media.  But I feel because of this normalization of coverage when we see death counts the weight of the deaths lose meaning.  Some might not view a hundred deaths as gravely as thousands or even tens of thousands.  But even one death is a grave and unfortunate matter.  My Law and Economics Professor said that the optimal amount of murder in society is zero because it is not the result of some fortunate circumstance and can never be.  While the military may try to argue it was in the pursuit of good, the lives of individuals should never be measured in this way.  I think showing how people have lost their families and someotimes horrifically in more then one instance demonstrates the severity of the issue.  Especially because often times the Military dehumanized them and made their actions which any person in such a stressful environment would do are used as the foundation for why the bombings occurred in the first place

I think a quote that perfectly sums up the derision that Russia has with its current state and where it wants to go is that Russia “looks both east and west,” and also that “Russia could be a democracy or an empire but it could not be both,”.  Russia deludes itself by thinking that if has inherent claims to independent nations.  They spout these beliefs of wrong doing and the justice they have in “freeing” them while also perpetuating harm on citizens within these countries.  A horrific example of this is them establishing a zone for evacuation and then shooting civilians who try to leave.   Russia wants to assert itself as a global power and dominant figure.  I think it is very unlikely that one could ever be both a democracy and an empire but I think Russia fails to be either.  It tries to coerce neighboring countries into its sphere of influence but faces repeated backlash for this.

The state of the countries that fight to remain independent of Russia and even just the state of war in Ukraine point to what my English professor cited as modernism.  We are reading Modern fiction and she described modern as the end of something.  The break from traditional and the values being broken and reformed.  This was most evident at the turn of the 20th century and through the Second World War. Much in the way former colonies pushed away from colonial powers we saw this similar shift with the fall of the Berlin Wall.  As they have gained independence and they desire them back I think we are on this same fault line that precipitated modern fiction and shifts in the geopolitics at the start of the last century.  The first article clearly demonstrated that Western powers and Eastern powers are struggling to find their balance on the world stage.  I think this changing landscape is influenced by changing relationships and citizens and countries willingness to fight for justice and freedom

I think the last point I want to hone in on is the International tribunals and courts.  I think It is a real struggle to hold leaders accountable for acts of violence and aggression on the world stage. It is alarming to hear how rape is an actual military strategy or also seen is as a valid way to seek revenge on nations. Rape is already often an underreported and often not believed crime that many get away with.  For it to be so common and for so many to go unpunished is truly sad.  I think also on the grounds of crimes of aggression and also the difficulty in prosecuting the actual officials who sent down the orders I find it interesting to cite Nuremberg.  Because yes it was prosecuted but often many years later.  And also to think about how in WWII the crimes were very explicit and hard displays of aggression and violence.  It was very clear to many that actions and justice needed to be served.  But when its like many other wars and not as clearly laid out as concentration camps and rounding up of certain persons I feel like people are much more willing to ignore and prolong the justice served.  While they both should demand the same convictions to justice it is very hard in reality for this to come to fruition.

I found the case for independent journalism extremely compelling.  I have not taken journalism courses previously and so much of what was discussed was new to me but I believe heavily relates to my major SPIA.  Much of our democracies pitfalls and triumph have been broken by independent news.  It is is an important part of our democracy.  When we see the limits of what our media and especially news can cover in other nations that is almost always a a warning sign of the limits of the rights of people within that nation.  While I understand that we can question objectivity in the face of who we are as humans and also in the rise of news coverage within say the last five decades I think it is still interesting to discuss independent journalism models.  I am a part of the Just Data Lab and we discussed at length the discrepancy between believing data is bias but even the collection of data is bias.  While data can mean many things I think this is reflected in the views of our media coverage. What we choose to cover is inherently bias in that we have picked to break this story.  I think the journalist does a good job pointing out that even if we can’t be objective, journalism can still be independent.

As I have mentioned before I think the compelling point of  journalism within our liberal democracy is really importnat and maintaining the legitimacy of these institutions to call out and cases of injustice are extremely necessary.  I would argue that in order to maintain a liberal democracy, a reputable and free journalistic institution is necessary.  Laws and the functions of our government are important to maintain our government and stop it from failing or limiting the rights of the people within it.  But a government that can maintain order that is necessary to its functions is also in danger of abusing that power.  Journalism is one way in which we can limit and call out the practices that make seek to limit the rights of the people.  We must guard ourselves against the guardians of our safety which in many cases is our government.  I would also argue that from many past examples this has always been the case.  Journalists reported on slum conditions and meatpacking industries at the beginning of the 19th century and then on watergate towards the end of it.  Journalism for its many sensationalist qualities over history has been important to giving an understanding to the public that can affect change.  Regardless of journalists not being the movers and shakers that create or implement laws that help our society to function.  It has always been key to inducing the change necessary to create these laws or bring them up in the first place.

I think the journalist is right to want to safeguard the models of the past.  And to ensure that independent journalism is able to continue.  It is an important facet of our liberal democracy and needs to continue.