TV war reporting

[Warrior]

I kept wondering why most of the reporting I saw on TV was negative, until I read this article:

http://nationalreview.com/comment/comme ... 032803.asp

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

It is dangerous to slag all reporters, just as it is unwise to slag all of any one group.

Any that would across the board slag all reporters, are cut from the same cloth of those that brand all wargamers in the same manner remember.

Where do reporters come from?

They are civilians. They eat sleep and act as such. Not all civilians are the same though. We need to remember that always.

On paper I am likely classed as a civilian.
HA!
Once in, never out. You serving or ex service types know exactly what I mean.

But I will say tKqthough, the reporting I have seen thus far, has been the most tragic part of the whole event.

"CNN the most trusted name in news". That statement holds little merit when it is measured against yet more media. I have not relied on the media for all of what I have gotten from this war.

[challenge]

To begin with, the piece the link went to is considered a conservative publication by Rush, and we know how liberal he is. Other pieces by the same journalist disparage any criticism of the administration polocies, which is the fundamental priciple the war is being fought to give the Iraqi people. While his discriptions may apply to some of the journalists, it is likely an exageration to include them all. (Does that mean he, too, stays within the click?)

A rare few of the journalists present ever served in the military, so those things that provide the tight discipline needed in a combat zone appear extreme to them. Others, however, have covered war from the battle field before and some have served. I feel the author does them a disservice. The journalist reporting on the lack of sleep actually said: we have not slept... There was no distiction made between reports and soldiers in his statement. If the author chooses to call this whining it is his choice; I considered it a good, first person account of the hardships being shared by all.

Having been both in uniform and a journalist, I think the soldiers are poking as much fun at the journalist as they're getting. Soldiers, as a rule, don't like civilians getting in the way. They just give you one more thing to worry about, and one that isn't trained to fit into the unit at that.

Our men are facing stiff opposition -- much more and sooner than we were led to believe. Everyone involved is doing the best they can in the first ever "Live" war. War is ugly. I didn't think civiians were ready to see what a soldier needs to do to survive while it's going on. It undermines the moral conviction of right -- essential to a supportive home front -- and caters to the worst in us. We have asked them to do a dirty job, but when we see how they get their hands dirty doing it, we get upset.

Everyone: soldiers, journalists and civilians must do the best we can until this is resolved and I think we are. If it's any consolation, my anti-war friends think the journalists are biased toward the administration and the war in general. Usually, if both sides don't like what you do, your doing it pretty balanced.

This opinion in no way relects the view point of management.

[simulacrum]

From the above cited article:

"But reporters are the interpreters for the rest of America of what’s real and what’s important in the world."

This is exactly what we do not want from reporters, no matter their political bent. It is up to the viewer or reader to determine "what’s real and what’s important in the world." To think otherwise implies a deep cynicism about the intelligence of the audience. The job of the reporter is to honestly present accurate information. For analysis and judgement, the reader should seek out sources trusted for their insight and leadership.

The embedded journalists are doing an excellent job of reporting information. Many other journalists, and the anchors, are presenting editorials as if they were news. More power to the embeds; grains of salt to the rest.