To say the world has become a crazy and dangerous place would be an understatement by a large margin. Nothing adds an exclamation point to that premise like the horrific execution of freelance photojournalist James Foley.

After viewing the still photos of his death thanks in part to a post in my Facebook feed I was left with an overwhelming sense of grief. With the articles and posts I’ve been able to read about James some obvious thoughts came to mind. Integrity: steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code. Conviction: an unshakable belief in something without need for proof or evidence. Synonyms: strong belief, article of faith. Faith: Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony.

James Foley seemed by all accounts to have all of these things in abundance. His very life was a testimony to those attributes and his character. And as far as I can see there is nothing that would have me believe otherwise.

He obviously knew the dangers involved in his chosen profession. And this was not the first time he had been taken captive. I won’t rehash here the details of that particular occasion. Suffice to say the rest of the media has covered that already.

James Foley stood for something. That something in large part appears to be lacking in other areas of the media today. Of course there are other exceptions to that statement besides James but they are few and far between. Again I don’t feel the need to name them you and I both know who they are. And believe me the “other media” knows who they are as well.

I make all of these points in order to pose a very important (and I’m sure controversial) hypothetical question. Would the rest of the mainstream media have the same conviction of cause if facing death as a result of their work? Let me clarify if I may. If actual truth was the standard used for evaluation of said work would they be willing to give up their life as James did for their convictions.

I think it’s a fair question. James Foley believed whole heartedly in what he did and why he did it. He didn’t have the rest of his pears to prop him up. He hadn’t fallen in with rest of the gang, going along with the excepted narrative. He was honest, persistent and above all dedicated to capturing truth through the lenses of his camera.

The majority of the media today has no fear. No fear of reprisal because everyone (save a few) are in on the façade. If found to be perpetuating lies and half truths was met with a terrorist like response would they (the mainstream media) have the integrity of James Foley? The belief and conviction to see the story, news cast or article through knowing the potential consequences? No. If we’re being honest with one another the answer is an unequivocal no.

It’s easy to offer contrived stories as fact. Slanting each stories perspective to fit an overall and widely accepted narrative that furthers an agenda for political reasons. Especially when there’s only a hand full of voices willing to call you out.

I offer the testimony of James Foley and his faith based conviction to refute the lies spread by a corrupted media. He is a man to be admired and emulated given there are so few worthily of that statement. Most of our media lost that type of integrity a long time ago.

I wrestled with whether or not to pose this question. Even though truth has merit, just because we can do something doesn’t always mean we should. I weighed in my mind the importance of the truth against the memory of James. Both James and the truth stood fast and didn’t waiver. So neither did I.

Humbly as always, it’s just my opinion.

Gary Baribeault