Centerfield

Rick, that's an interesting point. I have seen a lot of old WW II documentaries with people like Walter Cronkite--generally done in the fifties--and he always talked about "we" (ie, the Allies). I think, in part, it's the difference between WW II and our more recent wars. Even liberals, for the most part, think of WW II as a necessary and just war, especially with regard to the Germans. They are much more skeptical about the other wars.

However, I do think the WW II journalism raises a lot of questions, even if you think it was appropriate to take sides. The press generally seems not to have questioned decisions and actions by the Allied command even though some of those actions turned out to be wrong. (In part, of course, this is because, in the pre-Internet era, the press didn't have access to the information or the ability to disseminate it as it does now.) The question is--and I don't have an easy answer--should the public have been informed of things like the mauling the Marines took at Tarawa or the disaster at Arnhem (the bridge too far). The government censored a lot--if it had been able to see things like Tarawa--as it saw the Tet Offensive in Viet Nam--would it have affected the resoslve of the country? And, if you answer in the affirmative, did the public still have a right to know about it? If not, aren't you giving enormous power to the government to decide what we need to know?

In other words, it's easy to contrast media coverage of Iraq, for example, with the coverage of WW II and say the WW II coverage was "better" or more patriotic. But maybe the problem isn't so much with today's coverage, but with the WW II coverage.

In writing off Ernie Pyle, we have, however, lost a historic perspective as valuable as the antiwar vision we now honor. We have lost a sense of what it means for a frontline correspondent to write thoughtfully, yet with undisguised partisanship, about a war he and the nation believe that we are all in together....In the kind of assessment of a reporter that never would have been made by General William Westmoreland in Vietnam or General Tommy Franks in Iraq, General Omar Bradley observed of Ernie Pyle, “My men always fought better when Ernie was around.”

In WW2, the soldiers knew that the American press was on their side, and it helped inspire them. That can no longer be assumed by our troops--and isn't. Just ask 'em if the media coverage that comes over the MSM about Iraq is inspiring to them. I've asked. It isn't.

There are still a few heirs to Ernie Pyle out in the field, but they're not generally on the evening news. Instead we have a press that so often seems to not just be not on our side, but actively against us, determined to slant everything in the worst light possible for the US. To ignore or downplay all triumphs and accomplishments and overplay, even triumphalize, the negative. To follow that "antiwar vision" to a complete loss of not just patriotism, but any semblance of journalistic balance. And that's pretty damn sad.

Tully,

Do you really think that knowing the "press was on their side" inspired the American troops? I would think they had more pressing matters--like staying alive--to worry about that.

I will grant that the troops probably aren't happy about the coverage. But the point of the media is not to make the troops happy or provide a rallying point for the folks back home or support American foriegn policy objectives or anything like that. It's to report what's going on as accurately as possible. Now, obviously,you can argue about how well the media does that--and clearly a lot of people think it isn't doing a very good job one way or the other.

And I disagree that the media "so often seems to not just be not on our side, but actively against us, determined to slant everything in the worst light possible for the US." I think it's a mixed bag--I've seen lots of stories that talk about the troops and the mission in a positive light. And I have seen stories that talk about the elections and how determined the Iraqis are to vote. I don't see anyone "triumphalizing" the negative. But I don't see how the media can just ignore what is going wrong. This sounds too much to me like Viet Nam where the lament about people like David Halberstam was that he just was too negative about the war effort.

Omar Bradley certainly thought so, Marc, and Mills certainly noticed it, at least in Pyle's case. And yes, I've asked returned troops about the ongoing media coverage, as recently as last Saturday, and they universally affirmed that it's a drag on their morale, and they felt that the MSM was against them in large part. That the MSM at times seemed to be actively rooting for the enemy, or determined to run down the troops. To "play" the war story as one of unwinnable despair and pointless striving.

Now, you can argue that the media is not doing so, but the perceptions of the troops remain. That's what they think about what they see. It has led them to disbelieve MSM coverage out of hand.

To pound the obvious home, I did NOT say that the MSM is ALWAYS negative, or that all media is pursuing "the antiwar vision we now honor." If that's what you got out of it, read it again. The troops I've spoken with would be delighted with consistently balanced and fair journalistic coverage. They don't think they're getting it, or even anything close.

Tully,

I think you hit it on the head. There is a perception of hostility towards to military in the press. On their best days, the media can rise above its failings and do good work. This happens more often then we give them credit for. However, with the current state of the media today, this perception of a clueless, and oftentimes hostile press, is far closer to reality than it ought to be.

WW2 was a declared war. Vietnam and Iraq, while being war in everything but name, they were/are not declared wars.

few of here could say with first hand observance, but I would like to believe that if elected congress declares war, that american sentiment, including journalism changes.

but elective wars, or wars of choice, which are essentially what Vietnam and Iraq boil down to, lack support of both the full Congress and the MSM.

Maybe this is some unconcious way of keeping the government honest?

You left out Korea. And Grenada. And Gulf War 1. And Panama...

See a trend? Congress has abandoned the acceptance of responsibility.