[verysimple]

The problem with blaming a mob is exactly that. You're blaming a 7 year old and you can't really point a finger. I suppose blaming the victim is easier. It allows people to cope with an injustice that has them wonder what they would do if it was them. The first thing that comes to most people's mind is "I wouldn't go there, period", or "I would be extremely careful".

These are journalists and this is news. Their work requires that they go and report it. I like to believe that having done this for a while they are aware of the dangers and take some measures of precautions, but sometimes a bad call can change all this. It's not their fault, they're human.

However, saying that these journalists' bosses are clueless and that Ms. Logan speaking up might change their opinion when it comes to sending a female is a bit naive. They've also been doing this job long enough to have heard hush stories of what goes on in those remote areas in time of crisis, and what happens to journalists male or female.

What I would like to know is what steps are taken by news companies to ensure their people's security while in harms way to bring us those scoops. Why do we have to wait until the damage is done to start pondering on these questions? Also, I'm wondering if the bravado reporter's cliché isn't a little bit to blame for journalists taking abuses silently. Maybe the solution to the problem might even be really simple and has just never been introduced, because the culture has people believe that they need to wear their stigmas as a badge of honor to be considered for the journalism's pantheons.