
Why War Reporter C.J. Chivers Had to Suddenly Stop - prismatic
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a37838/end-of-war-1015/
======
rdl
I totally understand this. I lived in warzones for about 7 years, taking
substantially less risks than he did almost all of the time (the most
dangerous things I did were transit, and I got exceptionally good at selling
to people who owned aircraft and would let me ride on missions...), and maybe
felt 1% of this. I bailed in 2007 after one-too-many close calls (just didn't
go back after a planned 1 week trip), and was glad I had that luxury; ended up
going back a year later anyway -- it's distressingly addictive given enough
recovery time.

Of course, things must be even worse for actual civilians living in war zones.
People who didn't choose it at all, who might have started from a less-than-
ideal position, and who had nowhere to go.

~~~
jonah
Will you tell us more about what you were doing while you were there?

~~~
rdl
I worked with some Iraqi expats setting up an internet exchange in 2003/2004;
it got too dangerous and too chaotic, so pivoted to satellite ISP. I ended up
moving into a base, and then set up my own satellite ISP, and did backhaul for
cellular, did various radio stuff, etc. Left in 2007. 2008-2010 I worked for a
company doing medical imaging (radiology PACS) in hospitals across CENTCOM;
worked with the satellite stuff but mainly linux servers in hospitals, which
was my first exposure to the medical industry.

------
azernik
I'd stopped seeing Chivers' field work, and I'd wondered why. Sad to hear.

I highly recommend it to HN readers; articles where he talks about the
features of armament supply chains and their political effects are
fascinating. Some examples:

[http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/whats-inside-a-
tal...](http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/whats-inside-a-taliban-gun-
locker/?_r=0)

[http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/taliban-gun-
locker...](http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/taliban-gun-locker-the-
frankengun-of-wardak-province/)

~~~
jodah
On the contrary - I'm glad to hear that he'll remain safe, hopefully, from
here on out.

------
wanderfowl
Excellently written, and the part about his PTSD-like feelings was tough to
read. Reminds me of my friends who've seen some shit.

~~~
jobu
Agreed, especially the part about his son - that had me in tears. Once you
have kids, stories like that hit you in unexpected ways.

------
fapjacks
It's more addictive than anything else, being in and around all that chaos.
There's a weird experience of liberation and freedom and a sense of taking
hold of your own destiny in carrying a weapon in a warzone. Every single day I
think of how much I want to go back, at the same time I wish I never went. You
really do leave a piece of your soul over there. I can't imagine being a
civilian, born and raised in those places.

------
conover
_You go into the forest long enough, you become a forest creature._

------
RyJones
Well written and harrowing. Can't blame him for quitting.

------
randcraw
Great article. Reminds me of the books I read about folks who had fought in
Vietnam -- all consuming total immersions in being overwhelmed.

------
smacktoward
I see HN's ongoing War On Linkbait has resulted in the title of this being
changed from the one presented on the article itself, "Why the Best War
Reporter in a Generation Had to Suddenly Stop." Which feels a little insulting
to the reporter in question, the _New York Times '_ C.J. Chivers, since it
results in him getting demoted to just "a war reporter."

But the edit also manages to make the article sound much less interesting than
it actually is! So mission accomplished, I guess?

~~~
dang
I don't agree that the edit makes the article sound less interesting, nor that
it is insulting to take out superlatives, which we do routinely.

It does make the title less catchy, of course; that's one reason we do it.

~~~
teacup50
In this case, a magazine of note specifically chose to label this individual
"the Best War Reporter in a Generation".

That's not a link-bait superlative; it's a statement of judgement relevant to
the story.

"Why a War Reporter Had to Suddenly Stop" is a very different headline for a
very different story.

~~~
dang
On HN we don't simply accept what a "magazine of note" decides to tell us in
its headline. Readers here can make up their own minds.

~~~
wdewind
> On HN we don't simply accept what a "magazine of note" decides to tell us in
> its headline.

> Readers here can make up their own minds.

These two sentences seem in conflict to me...

~~~
dang
Accurate, neutral titles are what's best for readers to make up their own
minds. Someone has to make the call about what an accurate, neutral title is,
though—otherwise there would be a deadlock.

In practice, it's not all that arbitrary—not algorithmic, but not wildly
subjective either. We get it wrong sometimes, but the quality of the front
page is vastly higher with this practice than it would be without it.

You may also have noticed that when people complain about titles, in nearly
every case we accommodate their complaints. I'm not doing that this time
because the present case seems clear to me and worth defending on principle.
But that's rare.

Edit: we did change the title based on this suggestion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10235921](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10235921).
It's really helpful when users suggest better titles! I wish it happened more
often.

~~~
wdewind
As always thanks for a thoughtful reply. I'll reiterate somethings I've
mentioned to you before:

> Accurate, neutral titles are what's best for readers to make up their own
> minds.

Not to be pedantic, but I think you are using the word accurate when you mean
precise. Accuracy implies a consistent lens. My concern is that by striving
for higher precision titles we lose a consistency that actually has less bias
long term.

> In practice, it's not all that arbitrary—not algorithmic, but not wildly
> subjective either.

This is something that's been said over and over again to a community that is
extremely focused on empirical evidence. It would be not only great to have a
better understanding of how this works, it would be extremely interesting to
the community.

> You may also have noticed that when people complain about titles, in nearly
> every case we accommodate their complaints.

I have noticed that, thank you.

> I'm not doing that this time because the present case seems clear to me and
> worth defending on principle. But that's rare.

Again, this is a group that responds very well to evidence based argument, and
so it's kind of lame to hear that these decisions are made unilaterally based
on your principles. I mentioned bias above. Systems that are based on one
person making decisions based on their principles are by definition biased.
Maybe this is fine, but in that case it would be nice if it was made more
clear to the community.

Anyway, don't feel obligated to respond to this, it's just feedback. I
understand you're doing the best you can to solve a really hard problem, and I
do appreciate the work you put in. It's clear you are thoughtful and working
hard, but more transparency would be greatly appreciated.

