So let me move my objection to this comment aimed generally at the other end of cyberspace, and not at Nick specifically. I'm happy to have a lot of debate about all the issues, but I'm not going to engage a line of conversation that requires me to justify my relationships with my friends. By affirming the veracity of the story, and by blogging about what it feels like in town when grenades go off, I think I've said all that will benefit anyone on that.

I think the wires reported on this because they were all there, and if everyone has a grenade and Reuters, for example, doesn't, Reuters looks bad. There's as great article in Harper's Mag, April 2006, by Bryan Mealer, AP's guy in Kinshasa: He and the Reuters guy are having lunch and there's a firefight or something, a lot of people dead. They're already worn down by all the death around them. They look at each other, and the Reuters guy says, "I won't file if you don't." So they sit and have a chance to eat their lunch. (Read it, it's a great story, a brilliant piece that mediates on just the tension I'm pointing out in this post.) There were grenades no reported on, the journalists weren't here. Point: A pack of journalists can easily, and unintentionally, distort an event --- both its relative importance (this was kinda just another grenade in Kigali) and the news judgment behind it.

Nick Kristof does not need white heroic protagonists to make Africa "relevant" to Americans, and I believe it condescends to Americans to think so. There are enough other journalists producing good work that manages to seem relevant to Americans to suggest this, too; but I've said all I have to say on this subject already.

And on the snark: Yeah, we did. I have quite a few friends here, and my friend has both friends and colleagues. For two people who have 5 years of time and several different jobs with locals between them, that's not really so many people. (Now I'm gonna worry about who we forgot.) How many people did other locals call? I don't know, I didn't poll them...

In fact, your post shows how well the western media actually function. As you note, Reuters, CNN, AP, Al Jazeera and AFP all reported on the grenade attack. That's an extraordinary amount of coverage, and shows to me that editors at major news organizations DO care about what happens in Rwanda.

That's why I just don't get all the Nick Kristof animosity. He is doing just what you demand that other journalists do -- telling people that stories like Rwanda's are important. He knows that the only way to get Americans to read his work is by finding a way to make it relevant to them. A Rwandan columnist writing about the United States would probably do the same thing.

As an aside, on the melodrama accusation: you and your friend really called 50-60 people to check if they were OK? Not to be too snarky, but how many locals called that many friends to check up on them? I bet not many. It seems like Rwandans cared a lot less about what happened in their city than you did.

you're right, lots of different options. sometimes i think it helps to think about the strengths of another choice and the weaknesses of my own -- what can my non-chasing benefit from in chasing-behavior? sometimes you get better. sometimes there aren't lessons that cross paths... i guess the key is constant vigilance, no matter what we do. or maybe that just reflects my view of, like, morality.

Coffee? Bourbon? Simba? (I call it the locals' Bourbon).

Murazkoze
Christine

First of all, we read your blog for YOU. Or at least I do. Your insights. Your impressions. Your thoughts. Your reactions. You. This is not the NYT, this is your blog. And I for one want to know what you're experiencing, and not just because you're a dear friend, but because you're a person with insight, sensitivity, understanding, and intelligence. I think the fact that you are differentiating between a first person memoir like impression and looking for a White Doctor Savior so your audience can CONNECT means that you aren't doing the latter.

The thing I like about not being just on the news cycle (and not being a video journalist) is not having to chase ambulances. There are other options within the realm of journalism, and the freelancer has chosen his just as we have chosen ours.

I think part of the reason I found the piece so interesting is because it resonated with my own feelings as of recent (I live in Nairobi and had similar feelings about the recent referendum). It even inspired me to write a post for my own blog about that in between (not yet posted but to come soon).

Just wanted to give feedback on this piece in particular.

Best.

The (vast, wide, huge) difference with your reflection and what Kristof does is that Kristof MAKES STUFF UP -- the details, he changes and warps them to make them sound more appealing to his audience. That's what bothers me the most -- if he didn't warp details, he wouldn't have the rest of the problems -- the bad policy ideas, the "white savior" tenancies. He makes junk up, believing that its worth it for the endgame of tugging heartstrings. You just wrote honestly about your feelings/thoughts in a specific moment in time -- that's valuable, in my opinion.

And those two styles of writing are nothing alike.