In January, 2002, Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl disappeared in Karachi, Pakistan while seeking to meet with shadowy figures he believed to be connected with Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber." Before long, it became clear he had been kidnapped, and then that his captors had murdered him. His family responded by
setting up a foundation with the mission "to promote cross-cultural understanding through journalism, music, and innovative communications." Among the events and programs sponsored by the foundation:
[more inside]
posted by beagle
on Sep 26, 2008 -
3 comments
A conversation with Marianne Pearl is one of the more moving interviews I have ever heard and was certainly a highlight of the weekend. She is a beautifully calm person with seemingly the right approach to an awfully violent world.
posted by specialk420
on May 2, 2004 -
3 comments
Fairly well-reasoned
WSJ Op-Ed piece concerning the Boston Phoenix decision to link the unedited Daniel Pearl video. Apparently the Phoenix's editor claims he would have wanted it shown.
posted by Su
on Jun 12, 2002 -
18 comments
Daniel Pearl's widow speaks out. "Revenge would be easy, but it is far more valuable in my opinion to address this problem of terrorism with enough honesty to question our own responsibility as nations and as individuals for the rise of terrorism." (via the indispensable
rc3.org)
posted by jjg
on Feb 22, 2002 -
12 comments
What is Daniel Pearl trying to tell us? (
hint) The non-POW's at Guantanamo Bay have found their own
special way of showing contempt for their captors.
posted by Real9
on Feb 2, 2002 -
18 comments
Ideas have consequences. On the subject of the Daniel Pearl kidnapping, an interesting letter to Media News today (scroll down to the "Journalists as Political Operatives" item), reads in part, "I would not want to trivialize it for all the world, but I am constrained to point out that it was only recently that Mr. Pearl's newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, felt compelled to praise the book "Bias" which perports to lay bare the 'liberal bias' of mainstream journalism. In fact, the WSJ editorial board has for years persisted, along with other conservative commentators, to label journalists as political tools in service of a larger political agenda. The kidnappers of Mr. Pearl insist that he is a political tool, a spy, for some foreign government (one day the U.S., the next day Israel.) Where could they have possibly gotten the idea that journalists are not the dedicated professionals they claim to be but are instead something else in disguise?" Thoughts?
posted by nance
on Jan 31, 2002 -
35 comments
Wall Street Journal bureau chief is kidnapped. Hostage-takers demand better treatment of prisions at Guantanamo Bay. But my questions are, (1) Since when do journalists make good hostages and (2) Isn't there any way more creative than the ole hostage-holding-today's-paper as a way to prove that he is alive?
posted by tsarfan
on Jan 28, 2002 -
26 comments
