In all my years in journalism, I don't think I have met more than one or two reporters who have ever served in the military or who even had a friend in the armed forces. Most media hiring today is from universities, where a military career is regarded as bizarre and almost any exercise of American power is considered wrongheaded or evil.
Instead of trampling Newsweek - the magazine made a mistake and corrected it quickly and honestly - the focus ought to be on whether the news media are predisposed to make certain kinds of mistakes and, if so, what to do about it. The disdain that so many reporters have for the military (or for police, the FBI, conservative Christians, or right-to-lifers) frames the way errors and bogus stories tend to occur. The anti-military mentality makes atrocity stories easier to publish, even when they are untrue.
Now, by repeating this lie, elicited by the cockgobbler Hewitt, Moran shgould rightfully be shunned by he collegues.
Leo must be uncurious, because the newspaper business has a number of vets working for it. About the same as any other industry, and a lot less than GOP Hill Rats [...]
The idea that the chickenhawks have to hide behind is that someone is lying about Iraq and Afghanistan and they aren't. The truth is ugly, but cowards like Moran and Leo, people who sit at desk and smear the incredibly hard and brave work of their peers should be regarded as uncutuous liars and scoundrels.
I would argue that the US press has bent over backwards to protect the military from their failures. The only good part is when the press reports on the abuse of soldiers, but no one could think getting a kid a place to live after nearly dying in Iraq is anti-military. Unless you're a member of the Beltway Kool Kids Klub.
And the treatment our vets are getting after their service terms are over? Quite anti-military as well.
As fellow veteran and conservative John Cole said:
Maybe it would be best to ask the soldiers. Would they rather labor in harm's way with the rest of the world suspecting the worst of them, or would they rather there be a clear and open prosecution of those who ARE the worst of them? Which do you think they would prefer? Which approach makes their lives more dangerous and more difficult? Whose approach to this problem is going to create more IED's, suicide attacks, and bombings?
...the remedy is in scrutiny of every antimilitary/anti-Christian/anti-police story that appears. Many are necessary and accurate exercises in reporting, but many are not. For years those stories in the latter category went unrebuked. The blogosphere has ended the free pass system for axe-grinding in print. And that's a very good thing.Why scrutinize what you have already determined is antimilitary, anti-Christian/anti-police? What else am I to conclude than that Hugh means any news story that discusses or critically examines the military makes it, by nature, anti-military? [...]
Likewise, I still contend that if Hugh manages to convince enough people that the NY Times piece on torture should be ignored because it is just another salvo in an anti-military barrage, he is actually hurting the people he intends to defend. Not reporting on these issues, and letting them fester and letting rumors run rampant and letting large portions of Arab and Muslim populations believe that we condone torture and continue to engage in it will be far more deadly than anything the media can do with a few shoddy pieces here and there.