Jun 30 2007
What’s a Hero?
I had dinner with a co-worker the other day and we were talking about the firefighter story and how the local media in general handled the reporting of the tragedy and the public’s reaction.
The topic eventually turned to the word hero, which has been used by virtually all of the local television and radio stations and newspapers to describe the nine firefighters who died and their colleagues.
Not everyone is happy about that, and a few have commented to us that firefighters shouldn’t be referred to as “heroes.” Their primary reasoning seems to be that firefighters choose to enter a burning structure, so they know they’re taking a potentially life-threatening risk from the moment they step inside. “They’re just doing their job,” some have said. “They did what they were supposed to do,” others have suggested.
Some have expressed frustration that these nine men are getting so much attention when each soldier who dies doesn’t get the same attention. To this, I would respond that each local community that loses a soldier does give that man or woman an appropriate amount of coverage, although the national media doesn’t spend a great deal of time profiling each soldier. At the same time, I’m not at all certain that the national media spent a lot of time profiling each of the nine firefighters.
What I saw was more along the lines of what we in the business refer to as a “situationer:” a story detailing what happened, what’s happening right this minute and what is likely to happen over the next few days. You can be sure that those of us who have anything to do with news in Charleston have spent time talking about each of the nine, their lives, and personal stories told by those close to the victims.
My colleague said that he agreed with the criticism that the word hero is overused in today’s society. I do as well. There are plenty of people who are referred to as “heroes” whom I think are undeserving of such a label. But I pointed out that this doesn’t mean that everyone who is labeled that way doesn’t deserve the honor.
Let’s take the example of the soldier. Let’s say that in one day, two soldiers die in Iraq. One of them dies from injuries when his vehicle crashes in a non-combat-related accident. The other dies while saving the life of a fellow soldier caught in a firefight. There are plenty of people who would label both men as “heroes” because of a romantic association with soldiers in general, who volunteer to fight as our country’s government deems necessary. But were both of these men really “heroes?” I tend to think that the second soldier, who died rescuing his comrade, is the only hero of the two.
Not that the first didn’t make a sacrifice while serving his country. And I mean no disrespect toward anyone who had died while on active duty. But to me, becoming a hero requires an action that is itself heroic. Just being somewhere doesn’t, in my mind, qualify.
(It is worth noting, incidentally, that some reports have indicated that the first few of the nine fallen Charleston firefighters entered the building to make sure no one was trapped inside, thereby qualifying, just by motive, for the title in my book. The remaining firefighters went in to save their brothers.)
What’s your take? What does it take for someone to be worthy of such a title?




Rest assured that I am 












