COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	American Spectator
C00006 ENDMK
C⊗;
American Spectator
P. O. Box 1969
Bloomington, Indiana 47402

	John Podhoretz's review of @i[The Killing Fields]
makes many important points, but one he misses is the contribution
of American journalists and Schanberg in particular to the tragedy
he so movingly depicts.  The point was illustrated by Schanberg
himself in the Pulitzer Prize winning @i[New York Times Magazine]
article on which the book and movie are based.

	Schanberg describes how he went on a patrol boat expedition
on the Mekong River the objective of which was to find and shoot
up Khmer Rouge forces.  The the day wore on, Schanberg became bored
and bribed the Cambodian lieutenant in charge of the boat to return
quickly to Phnom Penh so Schanberg could file his story before some
deadline.  There is no hint that Schanberg sees anything to regret
in this action of his.

	There is no hint of the possibility that Schanberg's attitude, and
that of the American media generally, 
contributed to the Khmer Rouge
conquest by promoting the view that efforts to resist them were
futile and pointless.
There is plenty of evidence that the American media have a
profound effect on what people in many other countries think of their own
countries and problems.

	Let us fantasize.  Suppose that Cambodian lieutenant had
arrested Schanberg for attempting to bribe an officer to abandon
his duty.  Suppose the Cambodians had court-martialed Schanberg
and shot him.  The resulting effect on the seriousness with which the
Cambodian army took their war might have saved their country and
prevented the tragedy Schanberg reports.

	When we were fighting World War II, a journalist might well
have been court-martialed for such an act.  Moreover, if one of
our liberal-favored allies, e.g. the Russians, had shot an American
journalist under such circumstances, the liberals in the media
would have approved.

Sincerely,