I Cogitate

War stories
U.S. media reports fairly on success, failure in Iraq
By Gian P. Gentile

From my foxhole-view as a tactical battalion commander in western Baghdad in 2006, the American press, although not perfect, has reported the reality of the Iraq war.

Contrary to what most believe in the American military, as well as some conservative columnists and a few politicians, the American press does give a reasonably full, fair and balanced picture of what is happening in Iraq.

The war in Iraq is complex, difficult, deadly and heartbreaking, but with glimmers of hope and success that sometimes shine through the death and violence. Do we expect the press to only report the good and not the bad? Now, sadly, the bad tends to outweigh the good, and I, as a soldier and citizen, want the press to report the war accordingly...

...My position that the American press has reported the reality of the war in a balanced way is not a common one within the American military; in fact, it is a radical one.

It is my opinion that the American military’s ongoing condemnation of the American press’s reporting of the Iraq war has more to do with its own mistaken belief that the American media lost the Vietnam War and has less to do with the current reporting on Iraq. I also believe that because the American military fears so deeply the loss of support of the American people over Iraq as an outgrowth of Vietnam it tends, wrongly, to allay these fears by blaming the American press for not reporting enough of its successes in Iraq.

But as I looked around Baghdad from my foxhole in 2006, I saw, by and large, fair and balanced reporting. This is a minority view within the American military, but it was and still is my foxhole view.

Profiles in Journalism
The Boston Globe's Charlie Savage is awarded a much-deserved Pulitzer Prize, illustrating what real political journalism is about.
Glenn Greenwald
Apil. 16, 2007

The Pulitzer Prize Committee today recognized the work of one of America's few truly excellent political journalists:

Charlie Savage of The Boston Globe won for national reporting for his revelations that President Bush often used "signing statements" to assert his controversial right to bypass provisions of new laws.

Even for months after The New York Times first revealed -- back in December 2005 -- that the Bush administration had been secretly eavesdropping on Americans in violation of FISA for the prior four years, there were virtually no journalists writing about the Bush administration's theories of lawlessness which gave rise to that specific lawbreaking. And there were virtually no journalists who recognized or described just how profoundly radical that behavior was.

But as I've noted many times, Savage was one of the very few journalists in the country who understood, investigated and reported on the radical theories of executive power embraced by this President. And once he began reporting on those abuses, he was relentless in his efforts to draw public attention to the administration's conduct.

On March 24, 2006, Savage published an article -- entitled "Bush Shuns Patriot Act Requirement" -- which was the first article to report on Bush's issuance of a signing statement in connection with Congress' renewal of the Patriot Act. It was in that signing statement where the President expressly proclaimed the power to ignore legal requirements imposed by Congress requiring the FBI to report on its use of National Security Letters -- the very provisions which, it was revealed just last month, the FBI has been systematically ignoring as it spies on American citizens. As Savage wrote in that article: "The statement represented the latest in a string of high-profile instances in which Bush has cited his constitutional authority to bypass a law."

A Pulitzer Prize for the best journalist you've never heard of
Will Bunch

"...Savage is a Washington journalist who does things the old-fashioned way. He didn't go on the Imus show, or turn up in the sad parade of the Scooter Libby trial -- he was too busy trying to find out what your government was really up to, even when it didn't appear in the Note or whatever the Gang of 500 was talking about that day. In fact, Savage apparently reads blogs and is willing to listen to what experts -- citizens, if you will -- from outside the usual spheres have to say..."

Colby King's Farewell Memo
Subject: Goodbye

...A Post editorial stands for something, even when the desired action does not occur. A Post editorial is an expression of the considered opinion and collective wisdom and values of the best minds in the business. It is not the special province of any writer, no matter how prolific or dogmatic he/she may be in his/her views. Allow a Post editorial become the vehicle for the expression of one person's point of view-or a minority of the board's point of view-and the editorial loses its value, even though it might be selected to lead the page. I offer this thought because Fred (Hiatt, current Washington Post editorial page editor) has assembled a first rate staff - good minds that produce great work when they all contribute to an editorial, even though there may be one writer. Editorials simply must not be used to advance one individual's causes or views. That's what columns are for.

This means that members of the board must have the courage of their convictions-that the place to put views on the table is not in the corridor, rest room or across the dinner table at home- or in whispered conversations with friends and newsroom colleagues - but in the conference room where what is discussed there, stays there...or at least that's the way in which I was brought up by Meg (Greenfield, the late former Washington Post editorial writer). The period ahead offers serious challenges: the war; presidential politics; direction of domestic and foreign policy, a new Congress and a new city administration. If ever the Post's editorial page will be examined closely by readers across the city, country and world, it will be now.

The board, in my final view, needs to think through its position on Iraq, encouraging a full expression of views...

 RSS feed