My rage isn’t directed at you and I don’t think we are too far apart. Most journalists are generalists and thus , as you noted, cover the technical aspects of the war as well as the Millblogs. I don’t want the press to be a stenographer for the Military PR types. I just don’t want them to prosecution attorneys that see their job to win the fight against the military.

I also don’t think some Ernie Pyle stories are by definition wrong. If the Army had played the Tillman story straight I do not think an ounce of heroism would have been lost. He was a incredible hero before he stepped foot in Iraq. I would like to see the MSM simply cover the actions of our troops when things go right , not just when they are killed. They do not have to embellish the truth. If they would drop their agenda and just report the story straight our soldiers would look fantastic just as they are. It is fine to cover the story of the 14 dead Marines. It’s important that their gift of their life to our country is reported. But the living soldiers would love to see their good work given the same attention. Not to present a lie. But simply to expose the public to the full story.

Kevin Peters

You’re being both too generous and too critical in your assessment of intelligence.

The Fantasy Five Hundred editors (Cardinals) responsible for the maintenance of the creeds of their faith based community would probably insist that conscious sedition does not occur. They are , after all, charged with the maintenance of the delusion of man’s perfectability and anything challenging the delusion is definitionally heresy. Rooting out heretics and maintenance of the dogma has a much higher priority than allegiance to any particular nation. It is also rather unsurprising that dogma should infuse even the most mundane portions of the organs by which their delusional faith is propogated.

As I’ve noted elsewhere, the MSM is simply a classic Skinner box to which adherents to the One False Faith can turn on a daily basis to hit the bar and receive the sustenance necessary to for them to continue to ignore reality.

What is the seditionist angle behind this NYT article? They do nothing I can detect, even in sports and wine coverage, w/o some attention paid to the larger purpose.

Not sure why you addressed me — my original post was specific to the Tillman screwup and the idea (misguided, IMO) that reporters should focus on heroics.

I could not agree more that the MSM are vastly underreporting events from the battlefield and other crucial strategic aspects of the war. To report on the status of Zarqawi’s organization, his tactics, the effectiveness of same, territory held, taken, lost etc, is not the same as telling Ernie Pyle stories of heroism.

The latter requires empathy and some understanding of the soldier’s experience of battle; the former requires keen analytical skills, good sources within not only the military but also well-placed locals who may well be sympathetic to the other side, and above all, high intelligence and good judgment. Oh, and let’s not forget great physical courage. The number of journalists who currently fit that bill is, I’m certain, in the single digits. John Burns, probably. I can’t think of any others; there are plenty of courageous journalists who lack the strategic depth to make sense of what they see, and plenty of very keen analysts who lack the fairmindedness and/or physical courage to get the story and tell it straight.

So all in all, I’m with you on trashing the MSM, but I will emphasize again that it’s not so simple as rounding up a bunch of less biased, or even pro-military, reporters who will cleanse the press of bias and make it readable again. The current generation of reporters is unsuited to this extraordinarily demanding task. Simply won’t happen with them.

You’re wasting your time reading the LA Times or (aside from Burns) the NY Times or WaPo: these guys can’t tell it straight because they don’t know jihadists, don’t know the military, don’t know arabic and don’t know the imams, pols, ex- and current ba’athists…. How did they ever get assigned to Baghdad, anyway? All due respect to Burns, but how the hell can you properly cover a country whose language you can’t even speak?

IMO it will take a decade– maybe even a generation– before we have a critical mass of truly competent, analytically superior, militarily savvy war journalists. Wait till the better-ducated Iraq veterans come back home and learn about reporting and writing. Maybe we’ll see one or two additional John Burnses in another five+ years.

This mornings L.A. Times was a classic example of how they cover the war. Front page starts of with a good story about the fight for women rights to be included in the constitution. Nothing wrong with that. It’s current and important. Go back to finish that story and to the side of it is a little story about a mass wedding in a Iraq ’slum”. Quircky but OK. Crammed underneath that is a 80 or 90 word article about, get this, a succesful blunting of a series of cordinated insurgent attacks by a combined Iraqi-American force. One Iraqi soldier died, 6 “insurgents killed and 12 captured. A victory! A story of Iraqi forces performiing well. Buried. You and I know that if 5 to 10 Marines had died this battle would have received front page treatment.

But the Times id not done. Pages later the LAT covers the story of the mother who lost a son in Iraq who is marching on Crawford to protest along with 50 other anti war protesters. This lady gave her son to this country so I will say nothing bad about what she feels. she earned the right. But it is 5 times longer then the story about the battle and includes a large picture of the Mother.

And of course they are not finished. The magazine section does a story about 6 soldiers in the reserve who are serving or have served in Iraq. The LAT pays a lot of attention to reservists. Since many are called away from families and jobs they tend to be a tad less enthusiastic. Their stories deserve to be heard too but the Times has a knack for digging up the ones that are pissed. To be fair there was a couple that were interviewed that seemed to be supportive but their feelings seemed vague. The story started with the enraged wife and ended with the qoutes about how the reaervist thinks the war was OK, sorta and the last line is “is the price we pay worth it?”

My brother is serving as a reservist in Kosovo and he tells me there is a variety of views in the armed services, just as anywhere else.As in every war there is bitching and there are stupid mistakes that get soldiers killed.This is hardly unique in the history of war. But Bush would still win the Military vote handily but if one read the LAT you would never know it. The casualities get front page coverage, the victories are stuffed under mass wedding stories. Whether their agenda journalism is sub-conscious or overt it doesn’t matter. the News coverage is one sided and anything but balanced, sometimes leaning towards outright hostility.

Kevin Peters

It sheds light in the independence of the press.

I don’t want the press to lie to me and present a sugar coated false picture of the war.The PR problems of the Tillman case were monumentrally stupid. He was a hero whether he was killed by friendly fire or by other means. The fog of war is always going to produce these tragic situations and the Army should just print the truth and then explain that this does happen in battle situations.

Today’s MSM goes out of it’s way to find those who are oppossed to the War. Yes, there are soldiers and parents of soldiers who are against the war or how it is being waged. And their voices deserve to be heard. But the percentage who feel that way about Bush and the war are given far more attention then those who don’t. From everything I have read the military vote was very pro Bush, by a larger percentage then the general public. Yet if you looked at Chris Matthews and who he focuses on you would think that it was the opposite.

The Bush administration has made many errors in this war and when they do screw up I want the press to point it out. I don’t want them to be cheerleaders. I also don’t want them to be promoting their agenda against the war and trying to pass off their agit-prop as neutral journalism. The Quaqmire-Vietnam theme began from the start of the War in Afghanistan. The Battle of Baghdad was actually being compared to Stalingrad before it had begun. I am sure there are some exceptions but if the news is bad it will get played up and any triumphs will be downplayed or ignored. The only theme that the L.A. Times carries on the war is the casualties. very little of the actual battles and actions that you read on the Millblogs are examined in the Press.The war in Iraq is not conventional but with hard work it can be covered correctly. The link about Wolfe Blitzer that was on Instapundit yesterday was a classic example. The actual facts rarely change the theme of the stories.

…much of the French broadcast media is state-owned, as is the venerable news agency Agence France-Presse.

But that’s not all: Even the “private” French press is massively subsidized. It enjoys lower tariffs for freight transport, a postal discount, a reduced value-added tax rate and a complete exemption from local taxes on investment. Government also subsidizes secondary printing facilities and helps pay for the distribution of French papers abroad. … If a newspaper faces revenue losses because of declining advertising or circulation, the government will help make up the difference. The only catch is that, to benefit from this munificence, publications must officially register with a state agency (the French call it an organisme) run by a committee of editors and government functionaries.