04-08-2003, 04:10 PM
Foxbat, I like the way you presented your point, and that sentiment is part of what I find objectionable in this charge of treason. The media-government gentlemen's relationship changed hugely in the Viet Nam era, and even more massively after Watergate. What confuses me is that the Senator in question might be dreaming of the WW II model of government media relations, a framework which has not existed for some 35 years or more.
The free press, which is precious to the American system as the guardians against government skullduggery, is right to ask the hard questions, and extremely correct to provide more than one point of view. As I see it, to do otherwise is an abrogation of their professional ethics. If various reporters simply get it wrong, that too will come out in time. The folks who make decisions, such as the President or General Franks, have to have big enough shoulders to handle the load, which includes criticism of their job in process. That comes with the badge, and if they can't handle it, they need to find other work. Resolve goes a long way toward dealing with the fact that folks demand a great deal from people in high positions in our country. We all should.
Mind you, many news organs the world over, to whom we in America all have easy access, express varied points of view, as do the dozens of major news organs in this country. That too makes for an interesting calculus on how one deals with the media. Even with the vairable editorial slant at any given media node, the media sereves no one by just spouting whatever the government chooses to present, which is why Iraqi TV, or Pravda for that matter, serves us less well than most Western European news organs.
I find it alarming when people inside the media, and out, get irriated by retired General Barry McCaffrey expressing his disdain or disagreement with whatever is going on in Iraq, or when someone cries 'treason' for folks speaking their views. That is why we have the open media, to present more than one point of view. There is no need for a Ministry of Truth like the one Bagdad Bob is running. (I refer to the much harried information minister in Iraq.)
In time, the facts will continue to come out, and will show how strong or weak many of those views were. I cannot fathom why so many in the 'instant gratifiction' generations simply have to have the answer, and predictions of the future with zero defects, RIGHT NOW! :P
Which brings us to the Armed Forces.
Their job is to do the dirty work, and part of that job is to interact with the media. It is not an optional taks, it is inherent in any military task in a free society. Hence, the briefings and the war correspondents 'embedded' in units, like some were in WW II and some in Viet Nam. Any time the Military tells anything but the truth, I fully expect the media to bust their balls, and bust them hard. I realize that many journalists arrive with agendas, they are after all human, which is a blow to objective reporting that you or I have access to, but if you read a variety of sources, from a variety of points of view, you can filter some of it out.
It takes a criticial eye to digest it all, something in my view that is far too often lacking.
But Treason for operating in the global media with a paticular slant? That is just rubbish. I sincerely hope that no one takes this idea seriously, and that the Senators colleagues quitely remind him about how things are supposed to work.
The free press, which is precious to the American system as the guardians against government skullduggery, is right to ask the hard questions, and extremely correct to provide more than one point of view. As I see it, to do otherwise is an abrogation of their professional ethics. If various reporters simply get it wrong, that too will come out in time. The folks who make decisions, such as the President or General Franks, have to have big enough shoulders to handle the load, which includes criticism of their job in process. That comes with the badge, and if they can't handle it, they need to find other work. Resolve goes a long way toward dealing with the fact that folks demand a great deal from people in high positions in our country. We all should.
Mind you, many news organs the world over, to whom we in America all have easy access, express varied points of view, as do the dozens of major news organs in this country. That too makes for an interesting calculus on how one deals with the media. Even with the vairable editorial slant at any given media node, the media sereves no one by just spouting whatever the government chooses to present, which is why Iraqi TV, or Pravda for that matter, serves us less well than most Western European news organs.
I find it alarming when people inside the media, and out, get irriated by retired General Barry McCaffrey expressing his disdain or disagreement with whatever is going on in Iraq, or when someone cries 'treason' for folks speaking their views. That is why we have the open media, to present more than one point of view. There is no need for a Ministry of Truth like the one Bagdad Bob is running. (I refer to the much harried information minister in Iraq.)
In time, the facts will continue to come out, and will show how strong or weak many of those views were. I cannot fathom why so many in the 'instant gratifiction' generations simply have to have the answer, and predictions of the future with zero defects, RIGHT NOW! :P
Which brings us to the Armed Forces.
Their job is to do the dirty work, and part of that job is to interact with the media. It is not an optional taks, it is inherent in any military task in a free society. Hence, the briefings and the war correspondents 'embedded' in units, like some were in WW II and some in Viet Nam. Any time the Military tells anything but the truth, I fully expect the media to bust their balls, and bust them hard. I realize that many journalists arrive with agendas, they are after all human, which is a blow to objective reporting that you or I have access to, but if you read a variety of sources, from a variety of points of view, you can filter some of it out.
It takes a criticial eye to digest it all, something in my view that is far too often lacking.
But Treason for operating in the global media with a paticular slant? That is just rubbish. I sincerely hope that no one takes this idea seriously, and that the Senators colleagues quitely remind him about how things are supposed to work.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete