I remember back in the 1990s when war zone standards changed.

Prior to the 1990s, you could expect a country’s reporter and journo scum to be able to invade a war zone, take hostages in the form of coverage highly preferential to that country’s elite, and to waddle out without so much as a bug bite.

The change came along accidentally because large video cameras look like the raising of an RPG launcher to someone without optics to see more clearly.

But the change stuck because eventually The Adversaries realised that the reporter and journo scum were also combatants, and that all of the posturing done in Switzerland and elsewhere wouldn’t change that.

After that, weapons were pretty much hot when it came to dealing with reporter and journo scum.

Occasionally you’d get one of The Adversaries noticing that one of the people sent out with the reporter and journo scum didn’t really belong there, such as a technical advisor whose job it was to keep the satellite uplinks going.

They’d send a Kalashnikov or Dragunov bullet past that guy’s ear just to remind him where he was, and maybe that’d be enough to get him to go home.

It usually worked.

What surprised me with the riots in Seattle in 2020: nobody took out the reporter and journo scum.

Apparently Americans aren’t that far along in war zone philosophy versus those who have had to come by it through more direct and honest means.

But consider this: if you take out The Adversary’s media presence, did the events in that place ever happen, or does anyone even care?

No wonder these people now get inserted into the theatre of operations with the military itself.

The way I figure it, may as well give Dan Rather his gun in Afghanistan and Pakistan, it’s a lot more honest to see him out there as one of the combatants than to pretend someone like him is totally helpless.

Trump Gravity™. “Trust the science!”