Hi Susanna. I agree with some of your points ... but I draw the line well before others.

First, as just a general proposition, why is it necessary for the media to "wholeheartedly support" the war? I understand that military success is something the vast majority of us will get behind, as a goal ... even many who opposed the war. Once we're in the war, it would seem that succeeding militarily is almost a no-brainer.

On the other hand, I do see folks around the country protesting the war every day. So maybe there is still an "issue" of sorts regarding whether our military should succeed (or, as some wish, just pull out).

I know it's almost irrisistable for news organizations to express support for the war, since that's what so many viewers want. But does that make it a good idea? To take sides in something that is, on some level, an issue?

And, as I asked up front, why is it necessary? News organizations can cover rallies in support of the war, interview folks who express that opinion, etc. The idea that most of us want to win the war can certainly come through. They can do all that without actually endorsing the war themselves. In other words, they can cover public sentiment without taking a position on it.

Makes room for us as a society to express support for the war through the media, without requiring reporters to jettison the sense of objectivity they should be trying to bring to each assignment.

Finally, I'd certainly like to challenge you on the following:

...digging for the negative, focusing on the negative, seeking opposition for the sake of having opposition, challenging the military commanders with questions that at best are ill-informed and at worst petulant or openly anti-war, damages both the likelihood of swifter success in the war and the reputation (such as it is) of journalism as a profession.

Part of this is certainly true -- the media should never on any story want to challenge experts with "ill-informed" questions, nor should their questions take an "anti-war" or any other perspective. They are, however, going to ask a variety of questions, any of which might individually reflect a point-of-view. And they're certainly going to "dig for the negative", along with (hopefully) digging for the positive. They're certainly going to "focus" on the negative at times ... though they should treat it proportionately (many times they don't).

I guess my overall sense is that in all the press standards you endorse above, you're basically asking for a biased press with a point-of-view. We have that, at present, both on the left and the right. I think we'd be better off if more of the press actually managed to set more of their pre-concieved opinions aside.

We're seeing an example of what distinctly biased press can do in the form of Al Jazeera and it's role in fomenting anger in the Arab world today. I think their coverage goes father over the cliff of "advocacy journalism" than our domestic press does. But it does give you pause, and make you wonder just what's wrong with reporters refraining from adopting an opinion when filing a story. And how far things can go when the popular news organization everyone's watching decides to just reinforce it's audience's views.

It's intellectually lazy, in my opinon ... as well as being potentially dangerous.

One dimension of this that nobody has really focussed on has to do with the fact that the media is absolutely critical to Saddam's plan for surviving the war. I think it is pretty clear that Saddam correctly concluded that he could not win an up-or-down military struggle, and that his only hope was for public opinion in Europe and the US to turn against the war.

For that to happen, he needed the media to turn against the war and focus on the negative. While Arnett provides an extreme case of a reporter who was only too happy to fall into Saddam's traps, far too many other reporters and editors are doing the same.

Basically, what it comes down to is that reporters who create doubt and division (intentionally or otherwise) amongst the coalition are doing Saddam's work by carrying out his plan. This creates a host of ethical problems for reporters that may well be insoluble, but as far as I can see very few are even aware of their dilemma, and no one is talking about how to resolve it.

I would agree that the media shouldn't be "too negative" -- defined as negative stories that are disproportionate to the facts.

However, they can't worry about whether one side's plan or strategy in the war is to have negative news reported. Their main concern should be whether the information is true, and how to report it in a proportionate way.

The obvious example is the negative coverage that settled in a few days into this war. Many of the stories were *true*. There was indeed a story there in battle circumstances being different from what the military anticipated, not to mention an administration that did little to prepare us for the costs of war and was then caught off-guard by events.

In my opinion, what some outlets did was "overreport" this story. They got it out of proportion, and some in the press are now unprepared for the fact that the military is winning critical battles and utterly destroying the toughest divisions of the Iraqi military.

The press has to tell the story as it is. They can't ignore bad news just because it's Saddam's plan to have them report bad news. Neither can they slip into a retro-60's pacifist mode of portraying war as kind of inherently an endless quagmire.

Well said.

Well said.

I guess what bothers me about this issue is that, for some people (mostly in American academia), it's become fashionable to be anti-patriotic. Waving the flag is seen as uncool; defending the current administration, on ANY grounds, causes bewilderment and incredulity at the least. Unwavering support for the war is, of course, out of the question.

Perhaps it's only natural for some journalists to buy into this as well. But I don't have to like it.

Quite apart from whether hostile journalists are a vital tool for Saddam's regime (which they are), there's the issue of fairness and journalistic integrity. Why are so many journalists ready to belittle the most egregious of Iraq's atrocities, while examining each "friendly fire" or "collateral damage" incident with a microscope? Why do so few acknowledge that the coalition forces' few such incidents are regrettable accidents, and thus should NOT be compared to the brutal standard practices of the Iraqi regime?

Sorry, this stuff is really starting to tick me off...