(via Right-Thinking) One line of criticism of the press during our War on Terror basically boils down to "reporters don't realize that we are all part of this war."   There's a certain easy morality that stems from believing that you're a detached, impartial observer - "I'm just doing my job" and the systemic outcomes be damned.   However, when the enemy's strategy is predicated on manipulating the opposition press in a certain, predictable way, then the press must recognize that it's "part of this war" rather than happily oblige.  

Yes it complicates morality, ethics codes, and makes it harder to prove you're not just a lackey for those in power.   But too bad, you're part of the system whether you like it or not.  Yes, I agree it's a dangerous path towards saying "some types of dissent aren't allowed".   But, the alternative is worse (losing the war and validating an enemy strategy of "target the american media + domestic front"). 

In cases like this, the easy assumption that you're on one side of an imaginary line and "the system" is on the other is a luxury provided to you by far better men who must pull not only their own load but now yours.

Now, lemme make one helluva leap to point out an analogous situation.  This example from Lee shows the same sort of "I'm outside the system" type thinking applied to one of the few more literally life-or-death situations than the War on Terror - organ transplantation -

A hospital was fined $18,000 Friday because a doctor exaggerated the severity of some patients’ conditions to move them up on the heart transplant waiting list.

The New York Health Department cited Albany Medical Center Hospital for nine violations and accused a physician of submitting inaccurate information to the United Network for Organ Sharing, which runs the nation’s transplant system under a federal contract.

Inspectors comparing medical charts and information sent to the transplant network found that in five cases, the hospital falsely reported that the patients would die within a week without a heart transplant.

The investigation came after a routine audit last year by the network found record-keeping discrepancies for the majority of 45 patients listed as most critically in need of a new heart. The state investigation concurred with the network’s report.

“The pride and the drive for success took over common sense,” said state Health Commissioner Antonia Novello, adding that the hospital lacked oversight on the program’s record-keeping.

I don't hesitate to identify in this doctor a very lax, adolescent morality that can be summarized by "*I'm* more important than the system".   Too bad dude, you're part of it whether or not you like it or want to be & it will force you into difficult positions.   Tough, it's part of being a grown up & playing well with others.

Now, I have no idea if the organ transplant system is ideal and am far from passing judgement on it.  I'm instead pointing out what it really means to be, using a term ruthlessly debased by our cynics, a "team player".   For the doc, it sometimes means NOT doing what's in the strict best interest of his patient in order to help an unseen patient somewhere else and more deserving of an organ transplant.   For Western reporters, it means providing context in their reporting in the Terror War rather than showcasing the most sensationally negative headline they can concoct.

---

UPDATE - a rather potent example of the press being "inside the system" -

Coalition soldiers questioned two news media cameramen and a reporter after a roadside bomb exploded near a Coalition convoy two kilometers north of Mosul June 3.

The media, who were at the scene prior to the attack, told soldiers at the scene they had received a tip to be at that location prior to the attack and they had witnessed the explosion.

In a traditional conflict, the bomb maker's "operational security" would have required avoiding the press at all possible costs.   In post-modern insurgency warfare, involving the press was instead a critical piece of their strategy.  The bomb makers fully *expected* and *relied upon* outside-the-system behavior from the Press.

Since we're beating up on the press, how about this classic -

In a future war involving U.S. soldiers what would a TV reporter do if he learned the enemy troops with which he was traveling were about to launch a surprise attack on an American unit? That's just the question Harvard University professor Charles Ogletree Jr, as moderator of PBS' Ethics in America series, posed to ABC anchor Peter Jennings and 60 Minutes correspondent Mike Wallace. Both agreed getting ambush footage for the evening news would come before warning the U.S. troops.

In this example from back in '89, reporters travelling with insurgents who happened upon an ambush opportunity was painted as merely random chance - the ambush would have happened regardless of the reporter's presence.   In this war, however, the media has to recognize that the whole goal is getting TV coverage of the attack  - if the insurgents couldn't rely upon the media to act a certain way, the ambush wouldn't even happen!   Alas, I can't gaurantee that their answers would change.

---