The world of journalism has long portrayed itself "the 4th Estate," the "4th Branch" of Government, and the light that sends corrupt cockroaches of government scurrying for cracks into which to hide. I have long held that it was once a noble profession, and still maintain that it has an important role, but I haven't had faith in the integrity of the media in many years. I've stood beside the cameras recording the news, while contrasting the reports to the reality, simply too many times to trust the reports.
"Journalism is the one solitary respectable profession which honors theft (when committed in the pecuniary interest of a journal,) & admires the thief....However, these same journals combat despicable crimes quite valiantly--when committed in other quarters." Mark Twain in a Letter to W. D. Howells, October 30, 1880
And Twain was not the first to bemoan the ethics of journalism. A century earlier, some of the Founding Fathers, themselves complained of the conjectures of the news media of their day. Perhaps then, longing for the good old days, when journalism was honorable is as much an illusion, as hopes that it will return to its ethics.
Still, there is no doubt that a "free press" is crucial to Freedoms we enjoy. A friend of mine, who works at the edge of the public-private sector, has run into the importance more than once. Where there is little in the way of journalistic scrutiny, corruption runs rampant. His work often brings the spotlight of journalism behind it, as it brings jobs to an area and the press follows that development.
But where are the limits to the "free press?" Are they beyond the reach of the law? Do they have a responsibility to withhold information that can cost lives? Why do they believe themselves beyond reproach? Do American journalists have an obligation to report the American side of the story? Or do they have an obligation to "objectively" report the world or opposition view? Who watches the watchers?
To be fair, I have recently been in contact with multiple journalists as of late and they are far from equal in attitude or ethics. One is an editor. One writes for a regional paper. One is a freelancer. And one is trained but non-practicing in the profession. Only one of these has been the inspiration for this article. He fits the stereotype of my perceptions of his trade. And he staunchly denies that the lack of trust in journalists is their fault. He denies he can be viewed as partisan because he has not voted in years, yet he is intolerant of viewpoints not his own.
But my own views of the media, the military, and reporting were bound to surface when confronted with his. He is clearly intelligent and well-educated, but attempts to discuss the issues, that he brings up, devolve into attacks on my intelligence rather than the points of debate.
In the present world, the internet affords for the free speech of citizens as no era before it. One's views can be presented to the world, without the discretion of editors to select which will be published and which will not. In today's world, one can find the experts in a speciality, and judge for themselves the logic of their case.
Such was the case when an LA journalist reported the launch of a missile off California, while the government denied it. The photographic evidence was compelling. The vapor trail rose from the ocean straight up over LA. It wasn't that the journalist was lying. It was simply that he wasn't an expert and the picture deceiving. Few believed the government, myself included, until an expert in mathematics and photography displayed the reality, that it was in fact, an optical illusion.
And in the world of war coverage, journalists have presented a very slanted view. Each seems to be intent on their Cronkite moment, or their My Lai story to the point that they ignore the norm, the mundane, every day events of combat, while reporting the oddity, the rare event, which may gain them prizes and recognition. They seem to forget that Cronkite had many years of objective reporting, before his opinion that the war was lost in the Tet Offensive shifted the Nation's perception, despite the realities.
And yet, it was the dubious article by a Rolling Stones journalist using underhanded techniques that they rewarded. The article did take down a General, but by presenting the words of his staff as his. Only a careful reading of the story, separated the comments into who said what and it was clear that Hastings had pretended to be in an unofficial and sympathetic capacity to get close enough to hear those thoughts.
Abu Ghraib is far from the norm. The Haditha affair has resulted in the clearing of the names of the Marines involved and demonstrated not only to be set-up by the enemy, but also the unconfirmed reporting of enemy supplied "evidence." Where are the MSM reports of the girls of Kandahar with acid scarred faces, for daring to learn to read? Why does the media discard stories of enemy dead or enemy attacks on schools? Where are the stories of Americans building schools and treating civilians shot by the enemy? Those are the norm, while Abu Ghaib is the oddity. It is not that the media doesn't have access to these reports. They choose not to report them.
The internet has again afforded a platform for the experts to tell you the rest of the story. There are close to 3,000 MilBlogs registered at MilBlogging.com. Whether you are interested in life as a military spouse, the selfless service of a citizen supporting Our Troops, the worries of a military mom, the political opinions of retirees and Veterans, or the day to day life of a Soldier or Marine in the War, you can find a MilBlog to tell you. Most that I've read have a common theme in motivation: they were tired of the full story being untold.
No, not every story will have proper grammar, punctuation, or spelling, but they do present their view of the battles they face. And in the end, it is the message, not the construction which is most important. The fact is that Our Troops and Veterans are actually better at articulating their opinions than the average citizen. This is proven by the fact that most high school graduates are ineligible for service in the military.
And while, attempts at discussion of the issues with a journalist that meets my stereotype of his profession inspires this article, not all in journalism conform to that model. In fact, the others with whom I've come in contact recently in many ways break that stereotype. But I believe the MSM and the stereotype are in denial on why newspapers are bleeding red ink. They like to blame "the internet" for their demise, while denying the polls that show a lack of trust in their profession.
Who watches the watchers? The growing tide of experts that comment on their own areas of expertise, and the areas of interest to them. I take pride in knowing that readers of War On Terror News are better educated than the norm, that there are few fans, but many readers, who choose to form their own opinions, based on the evidence presented. It is my belief that American readers are tired of being told what to think by the reporters of the news, that they want the facts, not the slant of those trying to sell papers. The internet affords them access to the experts, and not just the opinions presented by those that report.
Stumble It!
