Member Rara Avis
I have no idea what that means, Ron. That I cared about? There have been double agents in probably every war ever fought Ö
Yea, Mike. On both sides of every war. My comment was based on the presumption that you're probably not idealizing both sides?
Perhaps such logic can only hold sway as long as the benefit is perceived to outweigh the cost Ö
I understood what you meant, Grinch, and would normally agree completely. My point, however, and the reason I put quotes around the word "logic," was that I believe there are times in life where a cost/benefit analysis, logic, and pragmatic decisions all have to give way to simply doing what is right. The reporter and the organization for whom he reports are there for selfish reasons. Always. Logic, I think, too often becomes little more than a way to justify what you wanted to do any way.
I don't believe in many absolutes, but I do believe in a few. I think each of us, and each country for that matter, has to set absolutes that become sacrosanct. Telling the truth. Doing what you said you would do. Not standing by while people die needlessly. These absolutes don't bend to logic or expediency. You abide by your absolutes even when it hurts, knowing it will inevitably hurt much worse if you don't -- even if you can't always immediately see how.
I suppose what I'm describing is something approaching faith? Faith that the right thing to do is always the right thing, irrespective of circumstance or cost? Which, perhaps, would explain why it isn't amenable to logic.
That doesn't mean the reporter is necessarily out of a job, though. It just means he goes without the pretense of impossible promises. He is a reporter and the enemy should expect him to report. It becomes their responsibility to hide what they don't want him to report, and that includes imminent actions that lead to equally imminent reporting.