RushingTech t1_je9cqia wrote
Whilst the work of these journalists is much appreciated, what were they thinking sending this dude to the middle of Russia to write about Russian recruitment for its illegal war? WSJ gambled their employee's life away
Redqueenhypo t1_je9s310 wrote
Seriously, no one should be going to Russia. It’s the equivalent of seeing one of those “CLOSED: extreme grizzly bear activity” signs on a hiking trail and going anyway
Professional-Can1385 t1_je9ttfz wrote
Same for Iran and North Korea.
BALONYPONY t1_jeak9df wrote
Been a while since I’ve seen an Iranian Grizzly.
Redqueenhypo t1_jeaygf5 wrote
Iran has bears! They’re sand colored
BALONYPONY t1_jeb1lee wrote
Get the fuck out of here… my ignorance never fails to produce a learning opportunity.
RedditModsAreBabbies t1_jebdsgo wrote
Genuinely love this response.
ddotevs t1_jebcvhm wrote
That's the beauty of ignorance I guess?
Customer-Useful t1_jebur15 wrote
Ignorance makes life worth living.
Aceticon t1_jedq05v wrote
How else would one experience the joys of learning!?
No-Prize2882 t1_jedvk1q wrote
I would have never doubted bears exist in Iran but I’d never have guess the color. Thanks for this.
hurrdurrmeh t1_jeat2us wrote
and afghnistan
Todd-The-Wraith t1_jebw0uh wrote
If you’re an American it would be like going into the grizzly bear area while wearing a suit made of steaks
Redqueenhypo t1_jebzi4t wrote
And if Russia is paying you to be there, you are either a bear yourself (Stephen Seagal) or an idiot in a salmon costume
AnotherLightInTheSky t1_jed4rww wrote
I've never heard of a bear getting choked to unconsciousness and pooping itself
Redqueenhypo t1_jed58vf wrote
There are bears in Russia addicted to huffing jet fuel, clearly his cousins
JackRusselTerrorist t1_jec7imh wrote
I mean, if I want to see bears, I’m taking that trail.
Douill0s t1_jedg20a wrote
We should be even more grateful for the journalists that go out and get info for us while we sit our fat asses in front of our screen, shouldn't we ?
scihole t1_jebz3h5 wrote
Brave man so u and me can be informed
rcmp_informant t1_jecrboa wrote
We have one close by and it just makes people go in there more. There’s a hot spring too. The bear signs stop no one.
Galkura t1_jebgcqc wrote
Since you mentioned a sign like that, I want to assume you live in an area with lots of grizzlies.
I know you can’t just go around killing them, nor would I ever condone it.
But what happens if you’re out hiking and a grizzly attacks you? Like, are you going to get fined out the ass or arrested if you blast a grizzly bear coming at you?
Todd-The-Wraith t1_jebwd08 wrote
Your best chance of survival is either bear spray or playing dead. Shooting a grizzly bear in self defense doesn’t have great odds for the shooter. Things are hard to kill and much harder to kill before they can kill you.
Might get the shot off and it might die eventually, but unless it’s perfect that bear will be taking you with it.
Redqueenhypo t1_jebvnm7 wrote
I mostly know it from national parks and it is by and large totally illegal to discharge a firearm in those. Unless the shot is at point blank range (no one sane would hunt a bear that way) and you have a spent can of bear spray on you and the bear, FWS will never, not ever believe that you didn’t just go on a lil hunting expedition.
Initial_Cellist9240 t1_jecs4us wrote
Dude we had journalists on the beaches of fucking Normandy for Christ sake.
Vuldyn t1_jeax0ki wrote
But then who's going to tell us the bear's side?
/s
Arretu t1_jeaks70 wrote
The dude has been living in Moscow for 6 years.
Those 2017 WSJ bastards!
Culverin t1_jeasseh wrote
So you're saying he should already have known the consequences better than all of us, and still did it anyways?
Does that make him brave or stupid?
Arretu t1_jeatex6 wrote
>Does that make him brave or stupid?
I think that's something that is almost inevitably in the eye of the beholder at the time, and at the whims of history later.
HeyImGilly t1_jeatxdz wrote
That’s a great way to put it.
Arretu t1_jeavhcj wrote
To elaborate, I personally see his actions as inherently brave. He must have had an understanding of the risks involved, and chose to do it anyway based on his beliefs.
If I were in his shoes, and not being as socially-minded as he clearly is, it would be a stupid decision to make. I honestly value mine and my wife's well being above the entire rest of humanity. Making the choice he did would be counter-productive to what I want, and therefore stupid. I am sure he weighed up his responsibilities and moral imperatives and came to the best decision he could, and I frankly don't have the balls to call someone like that stupid.
All that aside, bravery is not a trait that is in any way related to ethics or morality. A terrorist can be brave. The ability to overcome situational fear and act (which is generally what ends up being called bravery) is a useful trait, and can be used for good. That doesn't mean it is always used for good. Bravery can be selfish - if you overcome fear to do something for your benefit at the cost of others, that's still bravery.
In my eyes, this guy did not only make a brave choice. He made a positive moral choice, too. That earns a lot of respect, in my eyes, geopolitical consequences be damned.
ZombieLibrarian t1_jeaucz7 wrote
These two things aren’t mutually exclusive.
The type of person who becomes a good journalist places a high value on covering truth, even if it puts them in harm’s way.
A bunch of people are just here to criticize this person for taking a danger that I am quite sure they were already well aware of so that the world could learn more about what’s going on over there, but sure the rest of y’all just sit here and continue to confidently state the obvious while thinking you’re saying something insightful or clever. 🙄
And I’m not directing this at you, /u/Culverin
Culverin t1_jeaz0cd wrote
There are a lot of people jumping down the throat of WSJ without understanding that they didn't put him up to this.
This was his call.
[deleted] t1_jeb1xbg wrote
[deleted]
daveescaped t1_jeb6pbq wrote
This was once what reporters did.
And it has a ton of value. And it protects our world.
aneeta96 t1_jebc8n9 wrote
News reporters need to be where the news is. Sometimes that is the nearby park, sometimes it is a war zone.
Doesn't sound like they just sent him in a soon as the war started but that he had already been there for years. He would have cultivated sources already and been invaluable once war broke out.
kent_eh t1_jebfdhm wrote
They didn't send him there to cover this war - he was already there.
He's lived there for 6 years.
peter-doubt t1_je9ctb0 wrote
That's News Corp for you!
HerbaciousTea t1_jed5whe wrote
This person was a russia correspondent for the WSJ for years, and lives in Russia to do that work.
This was not some spy sent to infiltrate Russian military facilities.
This was a journalist writing news the exact same way they have been for the better part of a decade.
The idea that the arrest of a journalist for doing journalism is the fault of the journalist and not the authoritarian dictatorship is absurd.
Leg_Named_Smith t1_jeat1j9 wrote
I don’t know how WSJ made that choice. Having worked on HR at a journalism company the worker comp and other insurance costs alone for having someone reporting in Russia would be off the charts. Let alone the humane side of the matter.
Plsdontcalmdown t1_jebrz4f wrote
that's not how that works. Besides, the US is not at war with Russia!!!
StupidPockets t1_jed1auv wrote
We aren’t?
[deleted] t1_jec0dbg wrote
[removed]
SnakeBiter409 t1_jed3axf wrote
Unless he was an actual spy, (doubtful) then he knew what the risks were.
StillPissed t1_jeamts0 wrote
What are the chances he was an American “asset”? Obviously I watch way too much TV, but is this plausible?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments