Letters from the Editor in Chief

I found the discussion interesting, but I'm still unsure exactly "why" it's necessary for this group to release the journalist. Given the context, and the forward-throw to next Monday's topic, I can guess. But one is tempted to draw several conclusions:

-that targeting journalists makes it harder for important stories to be covered?
-that punishing those who would risk their lives to get the real story (rather than filing copy from their desk in London or New York) is counterproductive for those groups whose interests would be best served by befriending journalists and providing them access?
-that there is a misalignment between what such groups perceive to be the value of journalists and their actual potential contribution in accurately telling a story?

There are several possible responses to such questions. But, although it's doubtful that the members of Jaish al-Islam count as regular readers, what would be your message to those who would kidnap a journalist?

"You're doing yourself a disservice in targeting journalists and, for this reason, Alan Johnston should be released unharmed."

Is there a stronger argument than to appeal to their enlightened self-interest? Are there other factors involved?

While the kidnapping of any journalist trying to get the story as you say, is to be condemned, it also begs the question, had he been one of the many Arabic journalists you mention in the editorial, would the scribblers of the world have gotten as excited.

You said youself that the majority of those kidnapped, killed etc were mostly Arabic, and yet this is the first time I have seen it mentioned here. Not that you have not mentioned it previously, but I suspect with less enthusiasm.

Numerous Middle Eastern journalists go missing and the press tut tuts over their G&T's, but one BBc guy goes missing and the whole world is united. Puzzling, to me at any rate.

Perplexed why a well-respected journalist on the 'front lines' in Gaza City would be kidnapped? Don't be. Just look at who did the kidnapping: the Jaish al-Islam (Army of Islam).

One of the bigger mistakes that many people in the West make in relation to Muslim extremists is failing to understand the extremely irrational and cultic, spiritualistic nature of their thinking. Muslim extremists are followers of a religious cult as mad as that of David Koresh or Jim Jones.

The psychological independence from the 'group mind' and critical and rational thinking that people like Alan Johnston possess does not exist in the psyches/minds of religious fanatics. Muslim extremists completely believe that they're doing 'the will of Allah', and if that 'will' involves kidnapping (and possibly later killing) a decent, caring man who has worked hard as a journalist among the Palestinian people, then so be it. For such fanatics, anything can be justified in the name of Allah.

It'd be wonderful if Mr. Johnston is returned unharmed. However, I won't wager on it.

The kidnapping of a pro-Palestinian journalist is only "perplexing" if you assume that this was indeed the work of Palestinians. If you then ask the question who benefits most from this - then we are led back to the Israelis themselves. Mossad anyone? Stranger things have happened.

Your editorial somehow suggests that journalists deserve better treatment from terrorists than the rest of us. Guess the real angst is that people who are so well represented in the media sometimes turn on their benefactors without appreciation for all they do for them. I really don't understand why the reporters have taken to the streets to garner attention for one of their lost comrades...Most do not support any of the military actions taken to try to stop the people doing the kidnappings and killing. Always, there is the appeasement and call for understanding how these are just good old boys pissed off with infidels and western intervention in their lives. I think the media has created a significant credibility gap which will not be remedied by public demonstration for one of their own.

I fail to understand why James Mittlefehldt is perplexed by the double-standard of faint references to Arabic journalists kidnapped and killed while whole-on demonstrations take place over the kidnapping (and likely killing) of a British journalist.

Do a correlation study of "darkness of skin" vs. "reportage of victim" sometime and see what I mean. The darker the skin, the more victims you need to get equal reporting. This isn't just true in a "white world" vs. "non-white world" sense. Even within, say, the USA a white victim gets more press than ten black victims.

Lose the italics. They're hard on the eye and the web should focus on accessibility.

While I don't agree with all that you right about the news and journalists.....keep up the good work....exchange is a way forward.

If as you say journalists working in a war zone put their lives at risk every day just by being there and witnessing the violent events taking place around them, then they and the editors that send them into those high risk areas should value their lives and the great contribution they make by not corrupting the purity of the information they gather by politicizing it back home, and putting the editor's corporate spin on the truth.

If editors want those who live in the war zones to respect the lives of their journalists then the editors themselves had better do likewise, and uphold the value of their journalists by not distorting the truth that these brave writers risk their lives to acquire.

Steve Staniek

I think it's always political and I think the powers that be should free him