Monday, February 21, 2011
Sydney Schanberg's articles for the NYTimes
Reading these articles, I find it very interesting that we hear only one journalist’s opinions and thoughts. Obviously Cambodia was not a safe place for anyone, let alone an American, to be in, and Sydney H. Schanberg was very brave to stay past the American evacuation. He offers us a unique look into what was really going on; it took years for Congress to realize that American troops were bombing Cambodia and another year for Congress to realize that Secretary of State Henry Kissinger ignored a Cambodian plea for peace negotiations, but Schanberg reports on real time happenings in the remaining “Lol Non Cambodia” and gives voice to the Cambodian refugees. However, his bias does shine through even in his more news-y stories. He employs pathos frequently, in particular with his titles and pictures, and states his opinion as fact, especially when he talks about the opinions of the Cambodian people or Cambodia stationed diplomats in regards to the apparent failings of the American government. Sometimes he seems completely against the American involvement in Cambodia, but at other times he does agree that there seems to be no right plan of action; along with the diplomats, maybe he too believes “we got them into this mess we can’t abandon them now” (Apr 10). So many of his articles cited the interminable waiting game the people of Neak Luong or Phnom Penh were forced to play. For five years, the insurgents slowly took more and more land, and the people were forced to flee inward, leaving their homes and lands in the countryside for the protection of the city. The government lost supply route after supply route as the number of people needing food, water and medical supplies increased. The country was basically starved to death, and the citizens were so used to it that they didn’t even flinch when a headless body of an insurgent floated down the river! While Schanberg does try to give us insight to how the people really felt, I think reading the Killing Fields will be a more accurate depiction of Cambodian sentiments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I found it really interesting that you drew our attention to the fact that the New York Times coverage of the crisis in Cambodia comes from only one voice. I registered that every article was from Sydney Schanberg's perspective while reading, but I am now forced to look further into this fact. How does the lone reporter effect the story Americans were being told?
ReplyDeleteWhen I was reading I thought that having a single voice provided a sense of consistency for the story, as if Schanberg gained more credibility in my mind the more articles he posted, yet I could see how having a single voice would bias the story being received by the reader. Schanberg does not seem to hide his opinion of American intervention in Cambodia- it appears as if he blames American intervention for the position of Cambodia in 1975, and I too recognized this bias through the use of opinion as fact and appeals to pathos in his writing and photographs in the paper.
I agree that at times it was hard to discern whether Schanberg wanted Americans to leave Phnom Penh and let the Communists give governing a shot or force the Americans to stay, as they were the ones who initially got Cambodia involved in the conflict. However, I believe that under his reports, it is clear that Schanberg is criticizing the lack of American response as it became clear that Phnom Penh would fall.