The problem with what Galloway wrote is that not all reporters are like him. In fact, his article pretty much proves that. He admits he was the only reporter given that kind of access in the Gulf War. Why? I suspect it was because his attitude towards and respect for the military was different from that of other reporters. When he says that the military would benefit by giving reporters more access, I think he may be erroneously assuming that other members of the profession share his class and integrity.
He said at the outset of the speech that he could think of no more appropriate place to give that speech than at the Air War College. I think the National Press Club might be equally appropriate.
Exactly. Lets take another Vietnam media correspondent like Peter Arnett. Arnett was like most reporters; anti-war and arrogant. Hell, years later he even culminated his pathetic career by producing a cable special about the use of nerve gas on our own troops. So packed full of lies and the reporting so shoddy that the network had to retract it and fire Arnett.
Another is Sydney Shanberg, who reported on the Khmer Rouge takeover of Cambodia. They even made a good movie about his expereince. Even though his native friend was left behind because of his bad decisions, he at first denied the genocide the communists were committing. After that failed, he then acknowledged the communist genocide in Cambodia, but then blamed the USA for making the communists mad because we bombed them.
I could go on an on about the media during that time, but the thread would be too long.