I think the age of the “objective” journalist has long expired. Even theory that goes back to the Greeks that is used to analyze literature and culture state that there’s no such thing as objective, there’s always an agenda to everything. What one aspires to, as a journalist, is to give as much balance as one possibly can.

I was just reading up on the history of journalism in the U.S. and the main point made there was that tabloid journalism changed how reports were done especially in broadcast news. We now have the personality, the personal experience, and the side of the issue that dominates rather than the simple who, what when, where and why (and these Ws in their element are also rather un-objective because they involve a choice of which of them is more important).

Regarding attraction. It is indeed like moth to a flame. You know it’s dangerous but you can’t help yourself. And yes, once you get a story, especially a scoop that no one else gets, the adrenaline rush is one that is incomparable.

Interesting points made on the articles quoted by you, though. The protagonists on both sides now doubt the neutrality of journalists and look at them as political pawns. My impression is that it’s a matter of professional pride on the part of reporters that they remain above the fray and look with a dispassionate eye on events. What could account for this change in perception on the part of the public ?

And the quote on being aware of the danger yet finding the story enormously attractive is so true. Like moth to a flame, to use a worn cliche. I wonder if this was the case with Ces Drilon. She knew it was dangerous but the pull of the story, the potential scoop, was just so hard to resist. The adrenaline rush must be addictive.