It is interested to examine the political sides taken by the reporters in these articles. I noticed while reading that at times it seemed like the reporters were taking strong moral stances against the war without suggesting plausible political solutions. The New York Times article “Children Starving in Once-Lush Land,” besides its dramatic title, is filled with sob-stories about children suffering from malnutrition and over-crowded hospitals. It points the finger of blame at insufficient US humanitarian aid, but at the same time acknowledges that the city is entirely reliant on American supply for survival. It was frustrating to see a reporter editorialize an article to such an extent without suggesting an improved solution.
A common thread throughout the articles is the separation of Cambodian civilians from the civil war. They are portrayed as unwilling victims of political tragedy. In fact, the articles seem so focused on the civilian plight that they forget to detail what the insurgents are actually fighting about. It takes until article 4 to discuss the Khmer Rouge, and even then the details surrounding their mission are hazy. They are described as a rag tag collection of rebel factions, with unclear leadership and no goal other than over throwing Lon Nol. It seems to be unclear if they are even communists.
As the articles progress, Marshal Lon Nol, the military leader ruling Cambodia during the war, is portrayed as incompetent. His first introduction tells only his name and his rise to power through a bloodless coup. The second introduction portrays him as helpless and limping. He calls a press conference to instill confidence in reporters, which recorded in full in the NYT as “’I wish you a nice morning,’ he says ‘We wish you a nice morning, too,’ a reporter replies. The interview is over.” On his third introduction, he is described as “a superstitious mystic who has been partly crippled since a stroke four years ago.” His title as ruler of Cambodia is conspicuously absent from this elongated epithet.
I agree with the fact that the reporters posed no solution and were intent on criticizing. They also did not give much information on the Khmer Rouge and made them look disorganized which is weird given the fact that they were successful in what they set out to do so at least that implies some sort of organization. I think the articles gave too much of a cursory view and did not focus on details. I also thought that maybe they were going to let the Khmer Rouge go and just describe how so many people were dying of hunger. I think what I am trying to say is that some of the reports were describing what was physically happening instead of giving its readers an analysis and an information about the political situation in Cambodia. I also wonder how many people actually took the time to read about Cambodia especially when the embassies received letters asking for touristic information despite they were in war. I do think that the civilian population is the unfortunate victim of a political struggle. As the article mentioned the average person in Cambodia was unpolitical and did not care weather the government or the communist won as long as their fields and their families were not being killed. I think this is most true for the peasants because the people that lived in the cities did not have a rural life so they probably did not want the communists to win.
ReplyDelete