We had a good conversation here last year about the proper role of the media in the Terror War. Neo-Neocon puts my theory into practice, and finds the media lacking.
Steve: Thanks for the neo-neocon link today, plus the repost of that great tome from last year on the ways the big wars were won (differently). And thanks for letting Chuck comment. I appreciate both of you a great deal. You two are among America’s best.
So David Nancarrow from KKTV, one of your local TV stations, is in Iraq right now. Is his reporting lacking? Is he undermining the war effort? Do you even know he’s there, or does your knowledge of the media come entirely from reading the New York Times and listening to Hugh Hewitt?
What bugs me the most about the media reporting of the war is that it seems to be skewed towards getting a desired domestic political result rather than reporting what is actually happening.
Also the reporting is done by people who have no idea of tactical or strategic military theory. This is not a new thing, if the Tet offensive had been reported accurately (great American/South Viet Namese victory and the almost complete elimination of the Viet Cong) would the domestic anti-war movement have prospered as it did?
But inaccurate emotive “you are there” reporting lead to the perception that the Tet offensive was a VC victory and gave great impetus to the anti-war movement.