I have to disagree with you, Ken. The media is very competent. The real question is: competent at what? That is the central issue, and I think it gets at the role the media has played in our current COIN operations. The key points, IMHO, are:
1. Advocacy journalism. The US is an evil empire, with an army composed of ignorant economic losers, led by a bumbler from Texas, and after they return to civilian life they either kill themselves or go on killing sprees. Does all of that sound familiar? Every single bit is a narrative from the NYT, CBS, MSNBC, ... just about all of the national media. I realize for the journalists and editors it's nothing personal, but if you're on the receiving end of this it's personal as hell. Of course the military doesn't like the people who are seen as slandering them.
2. The media is involved in COIN - for the other side. I don't think it's so much that they want the jihadis to win, as that they want the US to lose. For evidence, look at Reuters refusing to call terrorists "terrorists." The NYT publishing anything that comes along that casts the US in a bad light. I could go on for pages. The point is, if the media is seen as acting in a way that benefits the other side, they can't be surprised when the people on our side treat them as adversaries - they are.
3. Using soldiers as pawns to advance their narrative. Haditha. Enough said?
I appreciate that the media should have a role. But I come from a period in time when the ideal of that role was to present all the facts and let people decide. The media of today sees itself as an active participant in affairs, one with special privileges, having no accountability to anyone, and acts accordingly.
Bookmarks