Good lecture. I finished the first 30 minutes. I'll watch the remainder after my sons little league quarter final game.
When I have first hand knowledge to compare a news report with, things are mostly reported accurately. But, a few times times, things were distorted waaaaaay out of context, or the story was very different from the questions that were asked. One time, I watched a local reporter question about 30 students at the U of M on a recent controversial change at the university, and when the news played, the two students who had the minority view were the ones shown.
McChrystal should have known better. But, let's suppose he might have been the best guy for the job given his success in Iraq(not that Petraeus can't get the job done). Now, due to this article, his career is over, and the war effort and lives of thousands of people in Afghanistan are at risk. The article revealed real chaos in the fractured team, at risk of getting Afghanistan ready for a US troop exit. From what I've read, much of the inflammatory material is only attributed to McChrystal by his aids. So, its not even his words, just that he allowed this guy access to his support staff on some booze fueled outing in Paris.
I just have to ask; If this is a war, and we are serious about winning it, then why does the US military allow a civilian this kind of access, why wouldn't the writer realize he was ending the career of the guy who gave him the story, and why wouldn't the editor think about the effect this might have on our ability to win the war?
When I have first hand knowledge to compare a news report with, things are mostly reported accurately. But, a few times times, things were distorted waaaaaay out of context, or the story was very different from the questions that were asked. One time, I watched a local reporter question about 30 students at the U of M on a recent controversial change at the university, and when the news played, the two students who had the minority view were the ones shown.
McChrystal should have known better. But, let's suppose he might have been the best guy for the job given his success in Iraq(not that Petraeus can't get the job done). Now, due to this article, his career is over, and the war effort and lives of thousands of people in Afghanistan are at risk. The article revealed real chaos in the fractured team, at risk of getting Afghanistan ready for a US troop exit. From what I've read, much of the inflammatory material is only attributed to McChrystal by his aids. So, its not even his words, just that he allowed this guy access to his support staff on some booze fueled outing in Paris.
I just have to ask; If this is a war, and we are serious about winning it, then why does the US military allow a civilian this kind of access, why wouldn't the writer realize he was ending the career of the guy who gave him the story, and why wouldn't the editor think about the effect this might have on our ability to win the war?
”There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.
![[Image: yVR5oE.png]](http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/329/yVR5oE.png)
![[Image: VKQ0KLG.png]](http://i.imgur.com/VKQ0KLG.png)