War on Terror the Military - Part 2 - John Cole and Hugh Hewitt

Posted By Blackfive

John Cole of BalloonJuice (one of the first blogs I read)  is having issues with some things that Hugh Hewitt has said about the media and the military. 

<...>
Hugh Hewitt's so-called 'support' of the military does it far more harm than it does good.
<...>
What is particularly disturbing is how he and others have artificially conflated the Newsweek error and the NY Times story. This is no accident, but an act of intentional and outright propaganda. The Newsweek story may have been inaccurate, but the NY Times story was not. To read Hugh, you would think both were inconsequential and simply the result of a media hostile to the military. "Nothing here- just the military-hating mainstream media."...

Is the media anti-military?

For the record, I don't believe that it's anti-military.  While the biases of many journalists lean left, there's nothing to indicate that they are inherently anti-military.  There are many positive MSM stories about the military (just maybe not in the big outlets).

However, there are some very left-wing, anti-Bush, people in the media, and they look for anything to make the administration suffer.  In their search for Nixons, they also want to uncover "Failure". "Quagmire". Etc.  If they have to run over the good work of our military, they will.  If they have to highlight for months the scandal created by a clerk and a few MPs, so be it (bear with me a moment).  If they foment hatred around the world for Americans, no big deal...

There are some great journalists out there.  But the statements made by the management/representatives/editors of the MSM - por ejemplo, Dan Rather, Eason Jordan and Linda Foley - represent slander.

And Newsweek, here and abroad, is stoking the fires of Anti-American sentiment.  Why?  I don't know, but I suspect it is to sell magazines (and, yes, for me it's personal with Newsweek).  I don't so much blame the reporter as I do the management/editors. 

Is Newsweek that naive to think that the pictures they put on the cover and the stories that they write won't affect our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan or our ability to fight and win the War on Terror?

You might have been able to argue against that statement before the Koran in the toilet fable.  But not now. 

Not anymore.

Check out this story that features the blog Riding Sun (which was recently linked to here) that discovered that the Japanese Newsweek had a different and more Anti-American cover than the US version.

I want a fair media (just as John Cole does).  If the New York Times published one positive Iraq story for every ten Abu Ghraib stories during the Abu Ghraib fever of last year, I would be surprised.  So, are there no success stories worth mentioning in the New York Times?

Abu Ghraib was a legitimate story that should have been reported.  I've written that many, many times and probably mentioned that in every single interview I've given over the last six to nine months. The soldiers involved in Abu Ghraib should be and are being punished.  And Abu Ghraib is being rehashed in the latest assault on the military (they see a pattern in prisoner abuse).  However, stop the comparison to My Lai.

Abu Ghraib was no My Lai Massacre.

Not even close.

Yet Abu Ghraib was on the front page of the New York Times over thirty times during the initial run of the story.  I don't have issue with the reporting of the story.  I take issue with the way it was used and milked dry in order to influence people's opinion of the war, of the military and of the Bush Administration.  Those are management and editor decisions - usually not not in the purview of journalists. 

I agree that media should be free to report the truth.  And I think that the media should be held just as accountable as the troops who commit abuses.  If the media commits slander against those troops, they should be taken to task.

So how is the Fourth Estate held accountable?  Not by the government.

They are held accountable by us -  the consumers.   

While we agree on most of my points above, John Cole misses the main point of Hugh Hewitt's post.  I believe that Cole reads Hewitt's post, intended to be critical of the media, as Hugh supporting Soldiers who abuse prisoners and calling for the media to cover those abuses up.  That's more than a bit of a stretch. 

I read the quoted passages and just don't see Hugh calling for the media to not report abuses.  I do see Hugh criticizing the media for the way it reports those stories as Watergate-like government cover-ups...the way suppositions are used, intermingling with the facts, to make a story seem more sexy than it is, more damning to the administration than it is (or was).  And, now there's a theme in the media about there being a "policy of abuse".  [BTW, I just had lunch on Friday with one of the Army's Interrogation trainers from the MI schoolhouse at Fort Huachucha.  He wrote the book on how to Interrogate prisoners.  If anyone knew of a policy of abuse allowed during interrogations, it would be him.  As most of you suspected, there is no such thing.]  But the rehash of Abu Ghraib and other cases of abuse at Gitmo will be used to build another conspiracy theory. 

Rather, Jordan, Foley, Newsweek - fake stories, forged documents, and baseless accusations - must be addressed and not swept under the rug.  And their lies would have continued if not for ordinary Americans looking into their accusations.

Soon, I'll be asking for some help from some of you, as consumers, to counter people like Linda Foley.  I'm not calling for censuring the media.  I'm calling for the lies to end, the slander to stop.

Our troops deserve better.  I'm no wingnut, John, but that's what Hugh is talking about.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2819/2500559

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference War on Terror the Military - Part 2 - John Cole and Hugh Hewitt:

» Looking For Love In All The Wrong Places from The Word Unheard
Well, look who dropped by for a visit. Who might it be from The Newspaper Guild/CWA-Union? (Note: The Newspaper Guild's own general e-mail address is Guild@CWA-Union.org.) Whoever it was ran a Netscape Search for "Linda Foley". I wonder what they... [Read More]

Comments

[John Cole]

I believe that Cole reads Hewitt's post, intended to be critical of the media, as Hugh supporting Soldiers who abuse prisoners and calling for the media to cover those abuses up. That's more than a bit of a stretch.

Not at all.

I believe Hugh thinks the media shouldn't cover these stories because they inherently dislike the military and can't be trusted.

I believe Hugh thinks these stories shouldn't be covered because they give ammo to the enemy, which, as I point out, is absurd in an era of global communication.

I believe Hugh thinks these stories shouldn't be covered because he believes they are just ways to attack this administration.

I believe Hugh thinks these stories shouldn't be covered because he is afraid that people will confuse good soldiers with the bad.

I believe, also, that Hugh thinks any mention of military failures is somehow anti-military.

I think he is wrong on all counts.

But I most certainly would not accuse Hugh of intentionally covering up for the abusers. However, if Hugh gets his way, that will be the net effect.

[Carl]

"Soon, I'll be asking for some help from some of you, as consumers, to counter people like Linda Foley. I'm not calling for censuring the media. I'm calling for the lies to end, the slander to stop."

Foley is the president of the Newspaper Guild. If one takes her to task for her comments, and attacks her ranks of Guild members at newspapers nationwide, you are going to be going against some fairly conservative news outlets.

Maybe you dislike the "bias" of the Guild employees at the Boston Globe, but what about the Herald? That's a Guild paper, too, and Jules Crittenden is no enemy of the U.S. Army.

Dow Jones -- father of the Wall Street Journal -- is a Guild operation. So is the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Most Knight Ridder operations are union. But Joe Galloway and others covering the war in Iraq are hardly anti-military.

Maybe you don't like the editorial pages of the left-leaning Pittsburgh Post-Gazette or the N.Y. Times, but these same newspapers employ excellent war correspondents who tell it straight in Iraq, like the PG's Jack Kelly and the Times' Dexter Filkins.

Ironically, the editorial page writers tend NOT to be Guild employees. Their job titles usually invoke the language of "assistant" or "associate" editor, which makes them management.

If you attack the papers because of idiotic rantings from their union boss, or because of their editorial pages, you will end up harming the regular joes who just write copy.

Anyway, all of these war correspondents have far more time in Iraq than either Cole or Hewitt.

[Carl]

By saying this, however, I side with Cole. Nice insight.

[Blackfive]

Carl - Good points. You'll just have to wait and see what our tactic is (although your making some good guesses)...wouldn't want to violate OPSEC yet.

In this regard, I don't think whether a paper is conservative or liberal really has anything to with it. It's whether or not they support the accusation that the US military is intentionally targeting journalists.

[Blackfive]

John - I think that you are putting words in his mouth.

"I believe Hugh thinks the media shouldn't cover these stories because they inherently dislike the military and can't be trusted."

I don't see this at all. There's quite a few conservatives in the MSM, too.

"I believe Hugh thinks these stories shouldn't be covered because they give ammo to the enemy, which, as I point out, is absurd in an era of global communication."

I agree with John on this one. But, again, I made that point in the post that it may be that it's the use of negative stories to spin and influence opinion that offend Hewitt.

"I believe Hugh thinks these stories shouldn't be covered because he believes they are just ways to attack this administration."

I don't believe that at all. John, in some fashion, don't you think there's been use of that tactic leading up to the election (sitting on stories until the weekend before the election for effect).

"I believe Hugh thinks these stories shouldn't be covered because he is afraid that people will confuse good soldiers with the bad."

I don't think he believes that. I do think that he believes that the overwhelming negative theming of military stories in the NYT et al could have that effect since they don't do many positive stories.

"I believe, also, that Hugh thinks any mention of military failures is somehow anti-military."

Not so sure about that one. But I believe that any minor failure is destined for the front pages in order to bash Bush and sell papers.

[West]

Interesting. I just ran across Mr. Cole's site last night & perused it in depth. My take on Mr Cole & his output is that while he attempts to portray himself as a deep thinking moderate, he is suffering from unintegrated values (i.e., he's all over the map) and that he will continue to do so because he cannot reason his way out of a paper bag.

He continually decries Mr Hewitt's call for appropriate self limiting on the part of the media, but sees no dichotomy in the MSM's voluntary suppression of pictures of people jumping from the WTC, the videos of beheadings, etc, because they 'would incite anti-Muslim violence' versus the continual front page coverage of the Abu Ghraib incident and the printing of uncorroberated stories aboutr supposed abuses at Gitmo with absolutely no concern for potential incitment of anti-American sentiment that can result in increased danger to our citizens and our troops.
In other words, he ignores evidence that the MSM values Muslims over Americans.

In short, I see him as willfully blind. He writes well, for what that's worth - but good exposition will not make up for faulty reasoning.

[Carl]

"He continually decries Mr Hewitt's call for appropriate self limiting on the part of the media, but sees no dichotomy in the MSM's voluntary suppression of pictures of people jumping from the WTC, the videos of beheadings, etc, because they 'would incite anti-Muslim violence'"...

I've never seen that offered up as a reason not to show graphic images of violence and sex or employ blue language. The usual reason is because most newspapers, magazines and television stations cater to a family audience.

Little Timmy shouldn't be exposed to beheadings and carcasses dropping from skyscrapers.

Our newspaper made the decision to show images of the contractors dangling from the girders in Fallujah. We received a great deal of hate mail about that, and a number of cancelled subscriptions -- from both people on the left and the right, supporters of the war and opponents.

Certainly, newspapers didn't show all the Abu Ghraid photos, only those that wouldn't offend too many people.

There usually is a bias here, however, because many outlets will show pictures of dead enemy soldiers, pictures of deposed dictators in their skivvies, etc., but not similar images of American troops (remember the outcry when networks showed pictures of U.S. POWs during the first weeks of the war?).

Quite frankly, the Geneva Convention requires that U.S. guards NOT give photographs of EPWs to the press, and we have made Saddam Hussein a Prisoner of War under the Geneva rules.

Our policy is to never violate the Geneva Convention, too, so we do NOT show pictures of EPWs.

[thebronze]

B5,
If you don't think the media/MSM is anti-military, you need to go back and listen to/read Hugh's interview w/ Terry Moran. He admitted that most of the media is very anti-military (and anti-administration).

That interview was very damning to the media/MSM and frankly, I'm surprised he admitted it.

[Toni]

Maybe Mr. Cole should read the interview with Terry Moran by Hugh Hewitt. I am a regular listener of Hugh Hewitt's radio program and although I don't always agree with him on everything I don't ever recall Hugh talking against the MSM reporting on the military. He often talks about the weighting of negative stories vs positive stories by the MSM. He also talks about fraudulent stories of which the correction of by the MSM is negligent until pushed or forced to correct by non-mainstream sources. The MSM really doesn't like to be questioned or pushed to admit a wrong and their egos have taken a beating in the last couple years. I say cry me a river.

[lonesome loon]

NEWSREEK has done it just like many of the lair left-wing news media and this is a example of just what kind of manure the left-wing news media leave

[THIRDWAVEDAVE]

I was floored to hear Terry Moran admit the MSM is anti-military, suffering from a hangover from VN. Watch for Terry's career to run aground.

[74]

B5, I was doing some reading up on the Japanese edition of Newsweek and discovered that it is apparently not actually owned by Newsweek USA--more like a franchise. Typically, only about 30% of any issue comes from the US or Intl. edition writers. In this case they probably used the story that was offered to them, but concocted their own cover.

[MaryAnn]

Re: Foreign editions of US publications.

I work for a wholly-owned subsidiary of a US media company outside the US. We do business in about 20 countries through a variety of wholly-owned organizations, JV structures, and licensing agreements. The editors in each country have the option to create their own content and/or translate and localize content from elsewhere within the organization. The amount of original content created in each geography is typically determined more by financial considerations than anything else.

What we all have in common is the right to use the US content but more importantly, the right to use the US brand. All companies take the reputation of their brands very seriously, and I would maintain that the reputation of a media brand is taken more seriously than most.

I can tell you from personal experience that even a licensee (or a franchise, as 74 put it), will hear from the owner of the brand - and in no uncertain terms - if there is a threat of damage to the brand's reputation.

Having said all that, nothing will get the attention of the brand owner faster than the threat of losing advertising revenues.

[Mike Cunningham]

The hope of all fair-minded people is to read and see news and footage made and produced with impartiality as the first creed! Unfortunately, we don't have much chance of seeing such impartiality this side of the next century! The NEWSWEEK story about the alleged desecration of the Koran is a case in point; the same as the story about the President's war record on CBS! Both were too good to be true, but the producers wouldn't let a small thing like checking for verification ruin a good headline; so over a dozen people died in Afghanistan rioting because a news magazine couldn't be bothered to check for a second source!

[John Cole]

"He continually decries Mr Hewitt's call for appropriate self limiting on the part of the media."

I don't see it as appropriate. I see it as Hugh attacking reports he doesn't like.

...but sees no dichotomy in the MSM's voluntary suppression of pictures of people jumping from the WTC, the videos of beheadings, etc, because they 'would incite anti-Muslim violence' versus the continual front page coverage of the Abu Ghraib incident and the printing of uncorroberated stories aboutr supposed abuses at Gitmo with absolutely no concern for potential incitment of anti-American sentiment that can result in increased danger to our citizens and our troops."

You mean I don't mention the dichotomy, not that I don't see it. I guess you could also infer that I don't see the logic ih higher math, or I don't understand Zen Buddhism, since I don't mention those in the post, either.

I think the images should be shown, and let adults figure it out.

"In other words, he ignores evidence that the MSM values Muslims over Americans.For the record, I think we should show the graphic images."

In other words, you are creating a false dichotomy between Muslims and the USA. YOU can be in favor of both, and against both.

[West]

"I don't see it as appropriate. I see it as Hugh attacking reports he doesn't like."

Well, yeah, he and I don't like them because there is no balance in them - if there were, there would be 100 positive stories regarding events in Iraq and our troops for every negative one. Instead the MSM devotes the area above the fold for negative stories regarding the behavior of an infinitesimally tiny fraction of our personnel over there, whose behavior is not representative of our people and which was being investigated, not ignored or condoned by the military, and ignores or places on page 17a stories about positive developments.

If you don't think that self limiting on the part of the press is appropriate in the case of AG, then I suppose that you do not support it in the case of the supression of the horrific images of 9/11? Every single shot of the WTC except long distance shots of the towers collapsing disappeared within days, never to be seen again other than on the Net.

If you recognized the dichotomy - and therefore admit to the press supressing certain materials and subjects - but don't mention it in the discussion of that very same subject seems a little disingenuous to me. Seems supression is OK with you when it plays towards your case, or when you do it - but not when Hugh calls for it.

I did not create the dichotomy in treatment of these various stories - the MSM did. I simply recognized it. I got nothin' agin Muslims in general - or Americans. But the MSM plays favorites. You just admitted that you recognize it as well, and you are entitled to believe that it is not important, but that entitlement does not make you right.

Now for Carl -

"Little Timmy shouldn't be exposed to beheadings and carcasses dropping from skyscrapers."

But I guess endless picture of naked men in pyramids is OK. Gotcha.

[John Cole]

I favor showing all the pictures of the people jumping from the towers, but I think your assumption that they are not showing it out of deference to terrorists or Islam or whatever ytou think it is.

I am wagering they are not showing them because they are graphic and gruesome and people will bitch about their children seeing it. You have heard about Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl, haven't you? You have heard of Brent Bozell, right?

[West]

Well, I actually agree with Carl on this one - if he were being straight about what his publication(?) will show.

I do not want little Timmy to see gruesome pictures of death, destruction, and naked titties on TV.

In an earlier day, I would expect the proper venue for the more sensitive news like this would have been in newsreels in movie theaters in the adult themed pictures (as it was in WWII) , later, say in the 60's, only on the late night broadcasts with disclaimers attached.

Speaking about the Vietnam era, (digression), do you remember the endless - gruesome - shots of dead & wounded GI's, the pulitzer winning picture of the execution of Bay Lop by General Nguyen Ngoc Loan in Saigon that was displayed at least once by virtually every media outlet? I do, and am of the opinion that that picture qualifies as gruesome and horrifying. Hmmm - no supression then - why now? And only, or at least mostly, in one direction? (/digression)

Today this information is distributed via the net - and one would hope that material like this is not shown to children - if parents are doing their job. Plus the fact that kids are generally not looking for stuff like this. The Net is not ubiquitous yet - but unless something drastic happens, it soon will be - or at least as accessible to all as a movie theater showing or television broadcast.

Aside from the Vietnam video & pictures, recently i have seem plenty of pictures of naked prisoners, dead Iraqi's, dead & wounded American soldiers, dead tsunami victims, and dead barbeque'd Americans hanging from bridges in the MSM, so your argument that people in swan dives, silouetted against a blue sky and black smoke is too gruesome to show is a little specious.

I see all the images I need and then some that support the rationales of those who oppose the path the current administration has taken, and nothing that supports the rationales of those who support it. And I know the information/images is/are available.

I never thought or said that I think the pictures are being supressed because showing them might inflame anti-muslim sentiment, what I suggest is that that has been one of the reasons expressed by the media for this suppression when queried about it - but not the real one. The real one being that the MSM in general (with some exceptions, of course) are on one side of this argument, and it ain't the administration's.

Tell me - have you seen a SINGLE picture of a new school in Iraq on any of the alphabet TV, or the NYT or WaPo? SF Chronicle? Boston Globe? Don't answer - I know what it will be.

[JarheadDad]

How many folks awarded the Silver Star, Bronze, Navy Cross et al have you seen in the MSM? How many heroes that have been awarded these Honors through actions on the BATTLEFIELD have become household names?

Yet the only angle ever covered are the dead and wounded. One out of fifteen in a positive light? Do a search on WWII heroes and get back to us. We were raised on stories of God, Duty, Honor, Country. Even Mom and Apple Pie for crying out loud. Our Heroes even went on tour to support the war effort and bond drives. Where is that today?

Sorry, I forgot. We're too busy targeting journalists and putting panties on guys' heads that would as soon cut yours off than look at you. If you were to come out of a bubble and read the MSM to get an understanding of the WoT these are the images and ideas you would take away from the reading. Period!

Spin it anyway you want guys. Twist it, beat it, roll it up. No matter what you do to it the facts remain the same. There is no balanced coverage of any part of the WoT in the MSM. You have very, very few exceptions that are never above the fold and that's it!

It is politically incorrect to personify an American Hero whose deeds on the battlefield earned him/her that title. Heaven forbid! That person actually killed in order to save his/her buddies! How can that be in this day and age? You get 24/7 of "abuses" or "torture" with an occasional human interest story thrown in. When was the last time you saw a Silver Star awarded on TV in prime time?

To me anyway, Hewitt is looking to the past and the MSM's ability to police themselves and come together in a real wartime effort to support their Country. I believe that is his point. Not so with today's MSM. They have no country but the one that pays the bills. What was once unthinkable, like getting people killed with unchecked rumors blown out of proportion, is now commonplace. There is simply no way to dispute that.

And the numbers are piling up. Count 'em and compare to those real old time war correspondents and their sensibilites on patriotism. The MSM no longer has the will to believe in this Country any longer. They constantly rant about being objective and "reporting" these "atrocities" simply because they ARE doing it for the good of the country. Yeah? I call bulls**t!

[LongTabSigO]

I think one thing that many forget regarding the media is that outside of our country, many THINK that the US Government has sway on editorial content.

Therefore, many see the Newsweek story reportage as somehow expressing US policy when that was never the case (even when the Dems ran things).

I have a hard time comprehending that the MSM is actively anti-military, but I would be unable to refute the charge on-point. I would ask B5 or someone to start identifying the "pro-military" journalists in the various MSM publications. That would be the best way to express his position that the MSM has no inherent anti-military bias.

[Rosemary]

Dear Matt,
Would you possibly be able to e-mail me the name of the book of your friend so I may buy it? Is it just for intel people? If it is, I will understand.

On the other topics, I don't buy any of their papers and haven't for a long while. You find out who their advertizers are and I'm in with ya. Have a great day.

[Davod]

You have to look further than Newswwek to see the pattern of bias. Look at the NYT publishing an article about abuse in Afghanistan that occured some time ago and was reported at the time. Why publish this just after the Newsweek article. It's called piling on. They may not be biased but they are looking for ratings and do not care what they do to get them.

On a separate matter. What makes anyone think that Isakof? has not used the one source does not comment and the other comments on something else as a justification for publishing before.

[jordan]

In WWII, the press got together, on their own, without government direction, to come up with an office that could censor incoming war reporting. We don't even have to go that far today. Common sense principles that apply to both sides equally in this fight is all anyone asks. The point is, back then, they policed themselves.

I don't think anyone, including Hewitt, is saying any critique of military actions is anti-military. I believe he is simply asking for the coverage to be in proportion to the overall context, in other words, an accurate depiction of the situation.

If detainees get abused 5% of the time, for example, and are well-treated 95% of the time, isn't the overwhelming story the restraint and compassion of our soldiers? Why, then, is the 5% story playing 90% of the time? I realize they provide for more drama, ratings etc... But the MSM makes much of its noble mission to provide the public with the truth, so citizens can guide our democracy informed by that truth. If that journalistic principle is real, why are we still only getting half the story from Iraq?

I'd like to see journalists who are objective, not pro- or anti-military. Right now, they are equating giving the military fair treatment with flagwaving, which apparently in MSM culture is the worst insult you can brandish.

JarheadDad put it best: It is now politically incorrect to write of an American Hero's heroic deeds.

While I can't come up with any MSM journalists that are pro-military, I do note Barbara Starr, who reaches millions as CNN's Pentagon reporter.
She is often critical of the Pentagon (like a tough Mom with eyes in the back of her head), but I have never seen her take a cheap shot.

[Soldier's Dad]

John Cole,

All of these lurid stories are to attack MY CHILD. The military....it is made up of the sons and daughters of America. Every family has the "Black Sheep"...whether it a cousin,uncle, whatever. When the military is attacked...every FAMILY is being attacked. The military is made up of 1.4 Million families.

You want to call Uncle John or Cousin Joe a bad apple fair enough. But when you call my entire family evil, you have decended into a hell from which you will never return.

[John Cole]

Does anyone know what the hell Soldier's Dad is talking about.

Please fill me in.

[Carl]

John,

Jarhead Dad and I tend to spar on a number of issues (especially on the role of embedded journalists -- he's agin 'em; I think they're they've been great for the military, public and press corps). But his perspective is valid.

If I might paraphrase him, he mostly worries about bias among reporters, people he believes are usually looking for dirt on the military and too often don't talk about the good things going on in the War on Terror, especially in Iraq.

So, if I might take issue with this:

"It is politically incorrect to personify an American Hero whose deeds on the battlefield earned him/her that title. Heaven forbid! That person actually killed in order to save his/her buddies!"

I'm going to mention the name of America's best known Silver Star recipient, a true American hero whose contribution to the WoT was blemished NOT by the various media, but by the U.S. Army.

Pat Tillman.

Here is a man who received widespread honor throughout the press for his decision to give up millions of dollars, a star's billing in the NFL, a cozy life of mansions, big cars and adulation, for a spot in the Army Rangers.

So, what does the Army PAO's office do with his good name when he's killed?

They lie. They say he died while fighting Al Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan.

In reality, he was killed by friendly fire when a fellow soldier mistakenly shot him.

Listen, military correspondents aren't stupid. They know the "friendly fire" claims a large number of American warriors not only during war, but during peacetime training. They can forgive a horrible, tragic error.

But they don't like being lied to. People revered Tillman. Now there's always a footnote. Not that he died from a buddy's bullet, but that the Army lied about the way he died.

Let me mention the nation's best known Bronze Star recipient: Jessica Lynch.

The Pentagon leaked a story that was pure BS. They said she went down, guns blazing, in a "heroic" fight to save her unit.

It was a lie. And the press discovered the lie when they actually talked to Pvt. Lynch. As it turned out, her commanders got lost, wandered into a close ambush and failed to battle their way out.

Lynch was knocked unconscious immediately when the vehicle in which she rode lurched off the road. She didn't even realize she had been in a firefight.

She has been at pains to explain to everyone since then that she doesn't consider herself a "hero."

So, the two best known medal recipients in the current WoT are also the best known myths, conveyed by a media that too many in here say aren't skeptical enough about "atrocities" or whatever.

Do you blame the various media for the Tillman or Lynch debacles, or the U.S. Army?

Jarhead Dad also doesn't like that the various media dote on casualty counts.

But, as I've argued to PAOs I mentor, this is an artificial scorecard of the Pentagon's own making.

The U.S. releases the names of the dead, but doesn't mention estimates of enemy KIA, EPWs, WIA, etc. They do this because they remember the specter of Vietnam, when body counts were used to buttress the argument that the U.S. was winning the war in Indo-China.

But to fail to mention the other side's losses is to concede a very large PR win to the enemy. It's tough for the American public to keep score if you only mention how far you're behind, and never how far you're ahead.

Americans, you see, like to keep score. We even publish "lines" on college football games. We think in these terms.

I was leaked a secret body count estimate in 2004 that showed thousands and thousands of dead Mujis, both in Al Sadr's Shiite forces and the more professional -- and deadlier -- northern coalition of Baathists and Jihadists.

These figures were not shared with the general public because of the aforementioned Pentagon policy, but, as an exasperated high-ranking officer told me, 'We really knocked the s--- out of them, and no one is giving us credit!'

I don't presume to know a way around this. Just something to consider.

[Red Stone]

I would like to point out the May Lay massacre never existed, it's just a communist lie...

[Carl]

What B5, I presume, was highlighting was the fact that both Abu Ghraid and My Lai ended up in punishment for the wrongdoers, although Abu Ghraid didn't arise to the level of brutality found at My Lai.

I'm sure the jury of his peers that convicted Lt. William Calley of murder weren't communists, just as the system of due process that punished Sgt. Granger wasn't based on Sharia law.

Ironically, the sentence for Granger, if served fully, will mean he stays longer in jail than Calley, who got out in 1974.

By the way, the only reason Sy Hersh got the story was because Ron Ridenhour, formerly of the Americal Division, spilled the beans after trying to get the Army, DoD and Congress to investigate the massacre.

Because the modern American military was rebuilt on the ashes of My Lai to become the globe's foremost fighting force, an institution that prides itself on its morality, justice and proficiency, the conduct at Abu Ghraid is so shocking.

For those of us who shared in the great renaissance of the American military, Abu Ghraid is a slap in our faces. I say this as a veteran, not a reporter.

Like My Lai, the actions of a few unfortunately affect the reputations of every combatant. Quite frankly, the harshest words I've heard about Abu Ghraid have come from grunts in the field, who are sickened by the behavior of those in rear whose actions have smeared their good names.

Unlike My Lai, however, punishment for Abu Ghraid has travelled upstream, affecting the careers of officers in charge of the prison, including a now LtCol shoplifter.

I wish some of my fellow reporters would mention that the new military has reacted with timely and strong measures to make sure this doesn't happen again.

I hope their reforms work, for the good of the Army, our nation and Iraq.

[JarheadDad]

Sorry to post and run but that dastardly work thing keeps getting in the way of the real important stuff! ;-)

Carl? if you're still scrolling this far down you'd better strap 'em on tight! I actually agree with you!

OK, now that you're over the shock, the military NEEDS to be held accountable. I'm still not clear on the whole timeline about Tillman's death announcement. I've heard both sides of that story and it looks to me like someone had well meaning intentions but screwed the pooch when it came time to lay it out there. Who knows but there's no way that story should've been embellished as it was. I know that personally I would put a boot somewhere where the sun don't shine if someone lied to me like that about my son.

Yaeh, it's politically incorrect to name the true numbers of KIA and WIA enemy. We both know the numbers are large but what do you believe the reaction would be from the MSM? Hell, you can't even call the enemy bad names without someone acting like you pissed in their cornflakes! If I'm fighting someone that is trying to kill me and my buds then don't print what I call them if you don't want to be offended! The list would be long and glorious but oh the reaction from the MSM if those words were used. Those are just words, consider the hysteria over body counts. Nam taught the military that are I'll be damned if I can blame them for being leery. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice ..........!

This is the point I'm making. We can't fight a war, do battle in 100 degree temps, kill people that are trying to destroy our very fabric of society, without doing it in a kindler, gentler way? Just damn! And what were the public reactions to The Huns and The Nips back then again? Spit on the ground everytime the names got mentioned I'd bet. Now we must kneel at the Alter of Our Enemies and pray we don't kill them in too gruesome a fashion. We must fight with expediency. Hold the panties!

Now Carl, to take you to task, just where the hell does that type of pantywaist thinking and logic come from? YEARS of indoctrination in journalist schools across this country. YEARS of seeing the military as some sort of unnecessary evil. YEARS of moonbats like Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, Peterless Jennings, et al leading the way from their own "lessons learned" with Nam. While I truly believe the bulk of war journalists are not ant-military they are anti-war. They've been taught that since high school so naturally it is a part of their makeup.

I've spoken with quite a few embeds and they all form a bond with the units they are attached with. They learn about Nora from Nebraska or George from Georgia and it suddenly becomes human. They learn that the military is made up of real living breathing Americans. BUT they do not still understand the culture. They do not understand that bitching is an art form in the military and a requirement to wear a uniform. They take this bitching and print it as truth. It takes a military person or someone that's been around the military for years to know the difference between dazzling bulls**t and fact. Why are these journalists with experience not included in editing or fact checking? Why is it that an editor thinks he knows the truth from 5,000 miles away? Or is it more probable that these same editors are LOOKING for something to support their agenda? You know the answer to that as well as I do. It all boils down to questioning motivations now doesn't it? Those experienced personnel would understand the military justice system and know when they're being fed a ration of two hump camel dung also. Not to mention knowing what is and isn't damaging to our people on the gorund. Seems like a novel concept huh?

Oh well, the MSM is on a precipice right now. They are coming extremely close to starting something they won't like. A few of the overzealous brought up on charges of aiding and abetting can happen. Regardless of the 1st Amendment, when you purposely put in print something that goes directly to putting troops in harm's way and against the goals and security of the country there are grounds. This is something that needs to be addressed internally by the MSM and they'd best get it right. Just as they did during WWII. If not then "We The People" will get it right for them! That's not a threat but a promise. I don't know of anyone that wants to go there!

The only thing that I ask, as an American Citizen, is for the MSM to get it right. No more. No less! And figure out just whose side they are on in the process! This DOES NOT mean they shouldn't hold the military's feet to the fire but it does mean that they should understand just who the good guys are! Right now that is Johnnie Jihadi and damn sure isn't us!

I swear, I honstly believe that the vast majority in the MSM do not believe we are even in a war for our very survival. I really believe that. And it's a scary thing!!

[Prior the Dark]

"Abu Ghraib was no My Lai Massacre" B5 is right but misses the point. My Lai was indeed a massacre of approximately 300 people but despite Calley's testimony no one believed his supperiors oredered him to kill everyone. Abu Ghraib/the prisoner abuse scandal is in some respects worse. The abuse/torture was legally sanctioned, supported by the chain of commmand and pervasive. My Lai was one horrible incident, Abu Ghraib represents a policy that is 1)ineffective 2)counter to American values 3) counterproductive to the whole operation

[Red Stone]

If the people tortured at Abu Ghraib are just murderous terrorists like those who caused September 11, I simply don't give a hoot for them...