I would have seen this as just one of many sad stories on the results of religious fanaticism, hardly worth a blog post, if not for the end of the story. The Guardian reports the case of a Pakistani woman murdered by her father and uncle in Italy because she dated an Italian man and refused to conform to an Islamic lifestyle. Later in the story they report:
The Milan daily Corriere della Sera reported that the victim’s father had applied for Italian citizenship two months ago. Applicants must convince authorities that they also embrace “fundamental” rights, including the right of a woman “to choose her own life”, said the interior minister, Giuliano Amato.
Fat chance he’ll convince anyone now.
David Perlmutter puts too little emphasis on one of the main reasons for journalistic atrocities such as “Reutersgate” – the mainstream media’s heavy reliance on “local hires” in its foreign reporting and photojournalism.
Stringers and freelancers are far more likely than staffers to have questionable training and loyalties. And because they’re chasing a paycheck with every assignment or photo, there’s a built-in incentive to cheat. Cheating is much easier to do abroad than when working in the states. There’s simply less accountability in foreign reporting — especially with the economic model that sustains the MSM’s outsourcing model.
Yet another problem is editors with a particular political agenda which they make known. Freelancers are more likely than staffers to satisfy such biases in whatever way they can. Biased editors, moreover, are less inclined to question articles, quotes, and photos that confirm their biases.
Perlmutter, ironically, calls this “the golden age of photojournalistic ethics” and refers to abundant ethical lapses in previous eras. It appears those days are over, however, given the level of accountability provided by the blogesphere. Whether the mainstream media catches onto this is another question.
It is interesting to hear the observtions from someone who has worked as a foreign correspondent. (Unfortuantely this wound up following the wrong post so I’ll add a link to here).
Some of the comments are expected, such as increased risk of violation of professional standards by freelancers. What I find interesting is the comment that, “Yet another problem is editors with a particular political agenda which they make known.” It is one thing when a freelancer is biased and the news organization catches on and dumps him, as Reuters did. It is a far more serious problem when editors are out to push a political agenda. I wonder how common this is.