Replies

Waaaaay back in June 2002, my wife and I were invited to a seminar at the University of Miami (FL) called "Journalism and Democracy" and it was for high school social studies teachers (like me) and high school journalism teachers (my wife). The keynote speakers were some heavyweights from CNN and the local yokels.

First they polled the audience for the number who considered themselves liberal (99% present) or conservative (me, the wife and a dozen others) and the number of former military (that'd be me and maybe one other) and so on.

A lot was made of the newly formed idea of "embedding journalists" with combat units and I got up and got quite aggressive and vociferous against the idea. In typical liberal fashion, they all piled on and just tried to hammer me into the ground, arguing that in a case where millions of viewers could stay informed of the "truth" it was worth the lives of journalists (funny how the senior guys always say this...but they're not going in harm's way) and I shot right back (in front of a bunch of silently SHOCKED teachers) that I didn't give a DAMN about the lives of mongrel reporters, but as a former military officer, I sure couldn't square it against the life of the soldier who would surely break cover to drag back to cover some hapless idiot reporter and get killed doing so. And you know, they all agreed it was worth that soldier's life, too! I came back with: "Oh sure...and I suppose you're going to go to that man's wife or mother and tell them that yes her son or husband got killed trying to save our reporter...but if it's any consolation.....WE GOT THE STORY."

Slowly my fellow teachers got up and applauded me. The yellow dogs of assembled journalists suddenly realized they had lost the liberal teachers in the crowd and backed waaaaay off, glaring DAGGERS at me and my wife.

At the complimentary dinner that night I found our name cards had been rearranged into the back far corner of the room. I know this because one of our friends saw folks from the institute do this just before dinner was served and we assembled to sit. I wonder why? More telling is the fact that neither of us was invited the following year while others were.

Also, there were complaints made against me (but not my wife) by those in charge, but my Principal...just shrugged it off. He had been told to send somebody, anybody! Not only did I want to go, I was the only teacher from our school who lived close to the venue and it was held on a Saturday. So? Tough.

In typical liberal fashion, they all piled on and just tried to hammer me into the ground, arguing that in a case where millions of viewers could stay informed of the "truth" it was worth the lives of journalists . . . [and soldiers].

As an opponent of "campaign finance reform," I have no qualms about claiming that I am far more of a proponent of the First Amendment than any journalist (or other) advocate of CFR is.
But the truth is that while journalism styles itself "the press," journalism is merely a genre of nonfiction publishing. And that the rules under which practitioners of that particular genre operate have been developed over the years to make journalism profitable. And that journalism is profitable only if it entertains.
It is also the case that we-the-people express our sovereinty only on election day, and actually do not need to keep up with events on a day-to-day basis (a feat which was not technologically possible in the founding era) in order to vote prudently. And that, indeed, "October Suprise" manipulations of the public mood immediately before an election depend on journalism for their effect. And it is true that any given significant subject will be more accurately and completely covered by a nonfiction book on the subject than it ever will be in news reports.
In sum, journalism is tainted by its deadlines and by all other entertainment imperatives under which it operates--including superficiality and emphasis on bad news. And journalism is tainted by its guild mentality which, in plain sight, functions as a conspiracy against actual objectivity.
Journalists are fearmongers, and fear is anticonservative. Journalists portray fearmongering as "objective," and condemn any who counsel courage as "not objective, not a journalist." Journalists use their own deadlines as an excuse for their incompleteness and inaccuracy, yet boast that journalism is "the first draft of history" even though--as in the case of journalism's "red scare" scare, contemporaneous publication by journalism of claims that journalism is being "muzzled" are self-falsifying.
I will link this into my on-going thread
Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate
of analysis of the characteristics and perspective of journalism.
Of course the irony is, ExSoldier, that after the fact you have cause to be glad that the embeds were there to document the valor and restraint of the U.S. military. It is your opponents who rue it; their journalist heroes now are the "victim" garritroopers of the Palestine Hotel whose "first draft of history" was--and could only be--Ba'athist propaganda. Just remember to use the deadline as your excuse, and never allow journalism to be critiqued against the actual facts . . .