A while back, I posted about about the role of the press in war time when, in essence, one of the opposition's primary goals was simply to seek press coverage.   I suggested that the Press needed to be more cognizant of its effects on the war and curb it's own behavior.   The comments it spawned were pretty vitriolic -

It is virulently dangerous thinking to control dissent. Where does it stop? Is Nancy Pelosi, with her vitriol, complicit with terrorists? Should Congress be told to stop debate? What about the Courts? Should they not hear cases about the legality of enemy combatant declarations?

The press plays a critical observer role for citizens. You grossly ignore history by suggesting any curtailment in the role of the press. Tyranny thrives on secrecy.

Or

You callously impugn the patriotism of the press.

Or

"be a team player" is code for "stop contradicting me"

On this topic, there's an opEd in USAToday that's worth reading -

Terrorists have their way on TV
Network news' mentality of ‘if it bleeds, it leads' fails us. Lives are at stake.

...For instance, on Sept. 7 and 8, networks used home video from the terrorists who massacred hundreds of schoolchildren in Beslan, Russia. A week earlier, kidnappers in Iraq slaughtered 12 Nepalese hostages, possibly for nothing more than shocking images it would produce on video. It's as though the terrorists themselves have begun to compete for ratings.

In our post-9/11 world, all journalists — but especially broadcasters — need to rethink what they're doing.

...The most dangerous television practice, though, is the “personalization” of news reports. Putting a face on every gory story has turned some terrorists into celebrities, on par with world leaders. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind, told interrogators that he was “inspired” by the “instant notoriety” garnered by the planners of the 1993 World Trade Center attacks. He said he wanted to cast himself as a “superterrorist” in this new “theater” of destruction. In essence, television gave him enormous motivation to commit a bigger, more terrible act.

...TV may need to explore a new ethic — with some stern written-down policies — to stop our nightly news from becoming a terrorist infomercial of death and to prevent future media manipulation by these barbaric people.

...The Pew report found that three-quarters of all American adults distrust the media. They should. The world requires tougher standards of journalism to alleviate this “terrorist theater.”

Arguments over the “if it bleeds, it leads” credo are as old as television. But in today's world, the practice crosses a terrible new line, encouraging publicity-seeking fanatics to commit heinous acts.

When and if this contributes to the next 9/11-type attack on the USA, the time for constructive, post-9/11 journalistic reform will have passed. The blood on the hands of terrorists will have transferred onto the lenses and notebooks of American television journalists.

Well said.  

There's a world of difference between asking the press to behave like a propaganda rag and making it aware of it's direct impact on the tragedy at hand.   It's precisely the crass refusal to accept that responsibility and step up & recognize the fine line between "reporting" terrorism and "encouraging" terrorism that leaves the press with such pathetic approval / trust ratings from the general public.  

I fear that in lieu of making those "troubling" decisions, and particularly in lieu of even the slightest appearance of being a pro-Bush mouthpiece, many negligently allow themselves to be manipulated by the terrorists instead.

---