Target: Media

But not the way you think.

I intended Targeting Journalists to be a starting point for a discussion bridging a gap between media and blogs on the issues raised by Eason Jordan at Davos. That post featured my online dialogue with Jules Crittenden - but one GI talking with one reporter means little unless it sparks more discussion and examination. That's why it's gratifying to see a Mudville link in the Christian Science Monitor piece asking the question Did US military target journalists in Iraq?

The answer is "no" of course, but the issue is one that won't go away. Regardless of the number of questions answered, the fact that there were questions will be the focus of much reporting on this topic.

Update: Communication is the key to understanding, of course, even in the internet age. After all, if people simply communicated better they might not be so surprised upon discovering that their long-held prejudices are unfounded, that their opinions are based on bad information or the limitations of their background and experience, all of which tend to inculcate an excessive eagerness to accept claims like "soldiers target journalists" as gospel without too much deep thought on the issue by the individual.

Guess what Mary Beth Sheridan, a reporter from the Washington Post, learned when she was embedded with our troops in Iraq?

That they are not, in fact, "blood-thirsty maniacs."

I found that out the other morning at a Columbia Journalism School First Amendment breakfast. The topic under discussion was "reporters as citizens," and Sheridan was on the panel.

<...>

In fact, she said, they were "really decent people." And even "sweet." Of course, after being shot at they were eager to shoot back ? a military attitude that seemed to surprise her.

That was reported by Myrna Blyth in NRO, but what I found more interesting was her description of the broader topic being addressed by the "breakfast club"

These First Amendment breakfasts are held about once a month, and when there is a superstar journalist, or the topic is full of buzz, they are fairly crowded affairs. But on this Tuesday morning, there were plenty of extra croissants to go round.

The moderator, as usual, was lawyer and Columbia journalism professor Floyd Abrams, and he started the proceedings with a couple of personal anecdotes. First of all, he recalled his most famous First Amendment triumph, the "Pentagon Papers" case. He described Chief Justice Warren Berger's dissenting opinion, which he quoted in part, as a "whine." Then he went on to tell a long anecdote about a Fred Friendly panel, sometime in the past, that included Peter Jennings, Mike Wallace, and a wounded Vietnam veteran.

Abrams recalled that Friendly, as he often did, presented the panel with a hypothetical scenario that there was a civil war between the northern and southern sections of an unnamed country, with America helping the southern forces. An American journalist, to his surprise, was invited to go on patrol with the northern forces. While on the mission, the journalist realized the northern forces intended to attack a group of Americans. What should the journalist do?

Too bad the crowd was thin when journalistic ethics was the theme - I guess most don't need the lesson. Where do they find such dull topics for discussion? ;)