Would Ernie Pyle have assassinated Adolph Hitler if the Fuhrer had granted the war correspondent an interview?
That serious question is inspired by a clownish remark from basketball analyst Charles Barkley who had this to say about Dan Rather’s interview with Saddam Hussein: “I cannot believe that Dan Rather didn’t just kill him and save us all that money of going to war.” Dr. Ink bows to the always provocative Sir Charles.
More than one American has daydreamed about political assassination as an alternative to war. “Why can’t the British Secret Service just send 007 over to Iraq?” wondered one office wag.
Let’s begin by listing the obvious objections to a newsman killing a head of state:
- Tyrants would no longer talk with us.
- They’d send their reporters to kill our guys.
- We’d have to climb over a high wall and change our role from chronicler to partisan.
- We would have to work for the CIA.
- We’d put all journalists in harm’s way.
Are there any arguments that can be imagined in favor?
- Killing the bad guy, even at the cost of your life, could save thousands and thousands of lives. (The utilitarian argument.)
- Loyalty to country should come before professional obligations.
- Think of the ratings!
Ernie Pyle wore a uniform. You can see it, and some of his equipment, in display cases at Indiana University. He died from an enemy sniper’s fire. He was, in almost every sense, a warrior for his country.
If, in a fit of egomania, Hitler had granted Pyle an interview, what would we have expected from the great journalist: perceptive questions? military intelligence? how ’bout a sharp #2 pencil to the German dictator’s throat?
