The utter contempt expressed by the NYT’s decision to publish stories revealing operational secrets of the GWOT is continuing to generate replies from the blogosphere (and, to be fair, some elements of the MSM). Armed Liberal, writing at WindsofChange, offers his analysis here. It’s long, but damning in its content.
Neptunus Lex, in his blog, writes about Naval Aviation and all of its parts in a very moving and insightful way. The nature of the men and women that answer the call to service is lovingly captured in his blog. This post, written several years ago, ought to be memorized by the elements of our national media that willingly put their political leanings before the safety of our miltary men and women.
2 responses so far ↓
Daniel // June 28, 2006 at 3:03 pm |
Regarding Armed Liberal’s extended quote from the Military Ethics panel, I’ll offer a different perspective.
The Marine general’s scorn for Mike Wallace’s statement, and the predictable outcry in the comments section, would be utterly reversed if the question was one of military mission. If I ordered your squad to be at a certain place at a certain time, and your failure to do so would endanger a larger mission, I couldn’t criticize you if you passed up a chance to rescue wounded American soldiers (or journalists, for that matter).
Doing your job — accomplishing the mission and carrying out your orders — would have trumped any personal feelings you may have had as a human being or an American.
Journalists also have a mission, though many Americans no longer respect it or believe in its sincerity. Since 9/11, many Americans have wanted journalists to swear some higher allegiance to patriotic duty, and for the most part news organizations have tried to tread the line between objectivity and national loyalty with care.
But strictly speaking, Wallace is right: If he is there to observe and report, and the public is served by that access (a wide open question), then abandoning that mission to become a participant detracts from the task he was sent to perform.
I think Jenning’s response demonstrates the limits of this kind of thinking: His first response (warn the American patrol of the ambush, even though it might cost him his life or freedom) would probably have been the natural one. These aren’t simple situations — there are values in conflict.
We are our choices. Would you have left Americans to die in the field because your orders instructed you to stop for nothing in making it to a rendezvous point? Would I allow Americans to be ambushed because my job called on me to be an impartial observer?
There is sympathy for the soldier’s conflicted position because Americans respect soldiers. There is scorn for the reporter because we hate journalists. I’ve been both and felt both, but I can attest that being a soldier didn’t make me any more noble and being a reporter didn’t make me any less ethical.
Agricola // June 28, 2006 at 3:31 pm |
With all due respect to your journalistic ethic, when did a journalist’s obligation to objectivity supercede one’s loyalty to his/her country? Are all journalists citizens of the world, travelling to all corners of the globe on some universal passport, with the objective of reporting to the universe the journalistic version of objective facts? Do we want objectivity to trump loyalty as a guiding principle in our conduct as citizens of the US?
I supppose that attorneys, as a group, are relegated to that same low opinion you claim for journalists. Yet, their advocacy, no matter how appalling on behalf of the guilty, does not relieve them of their dutys as officers of the court.
If there is a low opinion of journalism, it may arise from your self-appointed postion as a dispassionate reporter of facts, when in fact objectivity is often the least desired result of a journalist’s reportage.