CNN's complicity in Iraq has kindled a white-hot passion over here at Winds of Change.NET, which is why we're focusing so hard on the media and its role today.
As Trent points out, there is something deeply satisfying about having our focus in sync with Victor Davis Hanson's today.
C. Blake Powers has already penned a few guest blogs about this subject, beginning with an April 3rd look at how the embedded journalists in Iraq were about to change the war between America's journalists and its military ("Casualty in an Undeclared War"). Five days later, UPI noticed it too.
This Sunday, he continued his sharp media criticism by suggesting that there may be more to the CNN scandal ("The Chicago Way"). Powers may well be right, and I hope there are enough real journalists out there to do the digging on that subject. The entire incident brings the very functions of news organizations into question, and the truth needs to get out. What really happened? How widespread is it? How badly is coverage of Iran, Zimbabwe, The "Palestinian Authority" and other tyrannies compromised even now? Enquiring minds want to know.
Today, Blake brings us two more complementary pieces. They don't look at the CNN scandal directly. Rather, they pick up where "Casualty In An Undeclared War" left off and examine the media class, its beliefs, and its changing role in society.
"The Holy Media" looks at the some of the attitudes that still remain part of the undeclared war, as exemplified by incidents in Baghdad's Palestine Hotel. Until those attitudes are overcome, he argues, the news media's malaise will persist and its societal role will continue to erode.
In "It's The End Of The News As We Know It (And I Feel Fine)," Powers extends Glenn Reynolds' excellent "New Class Crackup" piece about the erosion of the news media's societal role, looking at the phenomenon through the lens of the fall of Saddam's statue and how it was covered.
Welcome to Winds of Change.NET. Welcome to the debate.
UPDATE: As Dailypundit points out, he did indeed have the embeds story and its implications covered as early as March 20th. Tip if the hat to Bill for being the first person I know of to write about this.
It would be nice,but I think your optimistic.The embedded reporters you refer to are vastly outnumbered by management,editers and non-embedded peers.I just don't see a relativly small group risking career,social status and peer esteem.They'll either forget their experiences or just keep silent.
Or move to Fox,which is one media outlet among many.
I know it will not happen, but nevertheless I think it would be fascinating if there was a Congressional inquiry into this phenomenon whereby the major journalists who cover events in Palestine and other miserable hell holes were called in to testify about the kind of amoral and unethical garbage that CNN did in Iraq. I have no doubt that the same dynamic is occurring in these other places. It would amuse me to no end to see these bastards turned over the coals until they are exposed as the rotten whores that they are.
What I found as disturbing as almost anything else was Dr. Gupta's statement after performing neurosurgery. He said something to the effect of "I concluded it was ethically and medically sound.."
Why is it necessary for a doctor to defend the Hippocratic Oath like that?
Is there some 'code' among journalists that could possibly preempt the Hippocratic Oath at some point?
Dishman: I have an even better one (if it could be classified that way).
I think it was on MSNBC. We were shown astounding footage of a fire fight under a highway. The Marines (I think it was Marines) were being shot at from all sides. One man being carried out on a stretcher sat up an fired two shots, killing someone trying to kill the men carrying him. One man ran to one of two ammo trucks that had been brought up for resupply; it was sitting next to one that had taken a direct hit and had ammo cooking off. He was trying to save his comrades and the much needed ammo.
While narrating the piece, the man who took the footage said that he almost picked up a gun himself. The ditz sitting in the studio asked him - now get this! - if he had thought about it because he was "caught up in the moment?"
He informed her that he had thought about it because his life was in danger and he was thinking about defending himself. And, admirably, he did so with a straight face.
And anyone who would "feel uncomfortable" with Dr. Gupta's ethical choice has no business speaking the words "journalism" and "ethics" in the same breath.
I'm sure that some professors of journalism might get upset over an embedded reporter considering picking up a rifle to defend himself or the CNN crew that went into Tikrit a bit early and the security guy in their SUV had to fire his automatic weapon when they came upder fire from Saddam loyalists. The idea is that if a journalist arms himself or becomes a party to the conflict it would endanger all journalists.
This may be an ethical position to take, but it flies in the face of human reality. If your life is in danger you will try to protect it.
With all due respect to C. Blake Powers, Daily Pundit made the same predictions about embedded reporters on March 20, nearly two weeks earlier than his post.
He's right, though. These embedded reporters will make a difference, because they are the nets's rising stars. That's why they were embedded in the first place. Some of them will become huge. And their influence will be all out of proportion to their numbers. Would it matter if dozens of no-names hated the military, as long as long as Dan Rather was friendly?
That's the situation we're looking at, not all that many years down the road.