Well, the fact that the news industry doesn't have enough money to only send salaried staff to war zones means there is an enormous, wide-open opportunity for young people who want to be on staff and don't know how to get there.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I think they are paying a lot more attention to news now, by the way, in part because of national-security issues. A lot of young people have friends or family in the military today.
I think the big news organizations, the UPI, AP, Reuters, and the 'Sunday Times' - do take their training seriously. And I think they do only send experienced correspondents with proper insurance and proper training. And they don't force them to go where they don't want to go.
I want young people to be hesitant to glorify war and to demand of their leaders justification for the sacrifices they ask of our citizens.
Sending our youth to war is wrong.
I do not believe that the children of presidents or vice-presidents should be assigned to combat zones. They have no place there.
I think it's very uncomfortable for people to talk to children about war, and so they don't because it's easier not to. But then you have young people at eighteen who are enlisting in the army, and they really don't have the slightest idea what they're getting into.
Meanwhile, our young men and women whose economic circumstances make military service a viable career choice are dying bravely in a war with no end in sight.
The jobs outlook in the U.S. isn't very good. And it's really about young people.
Wars tend to be very public things, they are visible. There are correspondents traveling with the troops and you get daily dispatches.
How do you focus on jobs and creating opportunities for the next generation if it's just essentially a war on public employees and others?