Posted on 11/04/2001 8:39:08 AM PST by Starmaker
I´ve often marveled at how effective the drafters of the Constitution were in laying the foundations of our republic. Operating in a near historical void, they managed to pull off a seemingly impossible feat. Largely through strength of will and mastery of language, they where able to successfully orchestrate a rebellion against the world´s dominant military power. Once securing independence, and having learned valuable lessons from the less-than-perfect Articles of Confederation, this group of men constructed a relatively brief document of incredible clarity and insightfulness. In so doing, they not only secured the survival of our fledgling nation, they revolutionized the world´s perception of what government should be.
Then as now, one of the essential elements meant to insure the well being of our constitutional system was the existence of an unfettered press. The free flow of information is not only critical to the electorate´s proper participation in our representative republic, it is a vital tool with which to assure accountability from our public officials. But however wise the Founding Fathers were in enumerating our divinely bestowed rights, and no matter how successful in devising an amazingly balanced political system, guaranteeing the competence or qualifications of members of the press was beyond even their awe inspiring abilities.
The fact that I consume more news than most has given me the ability to filter much of the pap that oozes from the mouths and keyboards of journalists. But the heavy, long-term attention that is being paid to the terrorist attacks, and related issues, has made this a bit more difficult. Masses of reporters scurrying about attempting to make their "up to the second" coverage on the same story seem more interesting has produced a morbidly amusing parade of journalistic silliness, typified by displays at the multiple daily press briefings in Washington.
Though it´s obvious that media types salivate at the thought of asking a high-ranking government official a "piercing" question, what they generally end up doing is making an inquiry that is of little relevance, or demonstrates a severe lack of understanding of the subject at hand. Like others, when Donald Rumsfeld initially assumed his post as Secretary of Defense, I was somewhat put off by his flagrantly abrasive personality. But as time and press conferences have passed, I came to see his demeanor as perfectly suited to counter the nonsensical drivel that emanates from the press. I have actually realized that his crunched eyebrows and palpable disdain for such blather roughly mirrors my own.
I´m not quite sure what I find more annoying about press questioning. Although the average content is often maddening, the holier-than-thou manner with which it is delivered can be equally so. A recent Department of Defense briefing provided one reporter the opportunity to pose a question about collateral damage resulting from the bombing in Afghanistan. With an unusually high degree of sanctimony, he ask Secretary Rumsfeld:
"Aren´t you afraid that the more collateral damage there is, the more you´re going to create new recruits for the Taliban and al-Qaida?"
The Secretary responded to this nicely in pointing out that there is no such thing as war without unintended damage, but what might have been asked in return was: "The alternative being what"? This correspondent was, in a not-so-creative way, saying "do nothing" for fear of making things worse. The problem is that things can always get worse and resigning one's self to doing nothing assures the permanent status of victim.
Another press representative, curious about the difficulty in supplying the resistance groups within Afghanistan, wondered:
"Isn´t there a need for an overland route to help the Northern Alliance more?"
Seriously, does this question even need to be asked? Of course there is a "need" for one. And if it were militarily or politically possible, there certainly would be one. Or is the impression that there is a conscious effort to make things as difficult as possible?
At the same briefing, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers was called upon to explain:
"…how the Red Cross warehouse was hit a second time… You said this was human error. What does that mean?"
I don´t know what the term "human error" conveys to those people occupying the journalistic ivory tower, but to me it refers to an error made by humans. And the matter of a stockpile of primarily U.S. purchased food, under the control of our enemies, and certainly not being disbursed to starving Afghanis, is irrelevant.
It is astounding to me that media correspondents, whose assignment it is to cover military matters, can be so unfamiliar with what the military does and what is at stake when they are called upon. This apparent pervasive ignorance is surely what allows the strait faced delivery of a question such as:
"Do we have US military personnel on the ground helping with targeting, and if so, could you tell us where?"
Methods used by the armed forces to select and acquire targets are not closely guarded secrets. Such information is readily available to anyone who has Internet access or a library card. Personnel on the ground, identifying and "painting" such targets is one of the most effective of such methods. If reporters care to see how this is done, I would recommend renting a copy of Clear and Present Danger from their local Blockbuster. And suggesting that the press be given specifics about where our servicemen might be operating, when behind enemy lines, is just plain nuts.
While I can, and often do, chuckle at juvenile interrogations from press operatives, what can easily be overlooked is the damage that may be caused by their ineptitude and search for headlines. Through the course of my public musings I have oftentimes made connections between current day media behavior and the watershed event of American involvement in Vietnam. The connection cannot be emphasized often enough. This period in our history is consistently acknowledged in universities and worshiped on the public airways as a milestone era during which the press became a de facto branch of government. As such, any and every conceivable opportunity to recapture that glory is seized upon.
To this day many insist that the Cold War struggle between world communism and the West was unwarranted. Though the case might be made that Vietnam was not the place to engage in a direct confrontation, the fact remains that the Cold War was indeed necessary. What is also irrefutable is that the behavior of the press during that time served to hopelessly cloud the war effort and came close to totally derailing western efforts to counter that barbaric communist system. But no amount of information coming out of the former Soviet Bloc as to the true nature of socialism will ever convince them of the folly of 1960´s media perceptions.
Though many in this country fail to grasp the truth behind the Cold War the necessity of confronting and destroying the terrorist threat is easy to get a handle on. This hasn´t, however, prevented members of the press corps from invoking Vietnam era terminology. A recent Associated Press release quoted US general Tommy Franks, who is leading the Afghan campaign, as saying:
"I don't believe this operation is at a stalemate…"
Similarly, a Reuters article carried the headline:
"Rumsfeld Says Afghanistan 'Not a Quagmire at All'"
It is doubtful that these men would have freely sought to include these terms while making public statements. Clearly, reporters are injecting this derogatory wording, and compelling our leaders to refute such ridiculous accusations is deplorably. Why not just ask them when they stopped beating their wives? From the outset, our leaders have made it clear that the fight against terrorism could potentially take years. How anyone can infer that we are in a quagmire, or a stalemate, after a few short weeks is mystery.
But let us suppose that we are, truly, in such a predicament. This does not then make the effort any less essential. The fight to end child abuse can never definitively be won, this doesn´t, therefore, make the campaign any less worthy. It is unlikely that the Israelis will be able to eliminate every threat to their nation, but the alternative is far less appealing than facing an open-ended effort. As with America´s current problem with terrorism, the prospect of absolute victory is not nearly as important as national vigilance. The willingness of press members to potentially damage public support for a vital military effort in order to experience Vietnam nostalgia is below contempt and demonstrates how far removed they are from servings the public good.
By no means is media know-nothingism isolated to our current war effort. On any given governmental or societal issue there are examples of egregious empty-headedness and arrogance. But in times of peace there are better opportunities to counter such malpractice. In wartime, we can hardly afford media business as usual. I, for one, believe that it is high time the press remembers that with their vaunted freedom comes a responsibility to the country and the people who guarantee it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.