I find this a brilliant observation regarding Capote in particular. It also led me to think about journalistic practices generally that fetishize tragedy. But I wonder if these practices are successful precisely to the degree that we tend to want to fetishize our own tragedies – the Capote impulse, you might call it.

Perhaps journalism has in fact historically “destroyed communities” by using their stories for their own purposes. But I believe we must ask ourselves – up to our ears in cultures of camp, snark, and psychobabble – the degree to which we are complicit in this – perhaps even familiar with the techniques in our own experiences.

Thank you for your insights, and your call for greater ethical responsibility – not only to the truth, but to the truth of suffering, and the obligation to respond with humility and humaneness.

One of Murrow’s lines is the most telling: basically that it is foolish to think and act as though there are ALWAYS two equal sides to a story. Deborah Tannen makes a very similar argument in her book “The Argument Culture.”

Striving for objectivity when examining/investigating a story is great and necessary. Reporting the results of that careful, fair and thoughtful examination, drawing actual conclusions from what the investigation brought to light…to me that’s a noble journalistic pursuit.

Of course I didn’t go to J-school, so I have no idea what they’re teaching these days.

My review of Good NIght & Good Luck is here:
http://homepage.mac.com/elisa_camahort/iblog/C36081249/E20051125185749/index.html

profit margins will determine the framing of more and more stories. More lurid and graphic tales always catch our attn. “Gray tales” don’t make sales. The bad(reporting) chases out the good everytime.