I remember reading an article published quite a while ago in the Columbia Journalism Review about media interviews with grieving families. The author went and contacted families interviewed in the immediate aftermath of accidents, disasters and the like to find out what they thought about the media having done so and to get their impressions of how they were treated.

I was a little surprised by the findings. The overwhelming majority of people contacted said that they had been treated with respect, and that they were glad they had been given the opportunity to voice their grief.

Now, I'm sure some people here will say "Columbia Journalism Review," it figures. I'm not a regular reader of it, but they're not any sort of megaphone for the press. They're pretty harshly critical of the media on occasion. So I trusted that article.

As for the media reporting it too quickly, i.e., before the families could be notified, while I sympathize with that complaint I disagree with it. The Iraq War isn't the first one that has been covered by the media. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the newspapers, radio stations, TV stations and newsreels of yesteryear waited until families were notified of the casualties to report things like this.

Families worried like crazy during the Vietnam War, the Korean War, the two World Wars and the Civil War when news of battle casualties preceded the names of those felled. It's part of the heartache of war, not the result of the media's irresponsibility.

I'm correcting you, because you're wrong. Back in Vietnam, Korea and World War II the news media did not have the ability to contact the families of specific soldiers before the Army. Why? Because the kinds of technologies that exist today did not exist back then. It might be weeks or months before news reels were played from battles in World War II and Korea. In Vietnam, news media did not have the unprecedented level of access to troop level operations that they have today. And they also did not have the benefit of the internet to transmit data across the world in seconds.

The issue here is not "coverage" of the war. The issue here are members of the media failing to respect those killed in action by putting their lust for the story over their thoughts of the feelings for those family members.

It's simply not true that it took weeks or months before news reels made it back from WW2. The battle for Iwo Jima was covered in near real time, and that's only one example. Besides, I don't think the issue were discussing concerned video coverage of the deaths in Iraq.

The complaint was about the reporting of the additional 14 deaths. To my knowledge, the names of the dead were not revealed in the reports, but only the identity of the unit. The very same kinds of news reports were a stock feature of reports in other wars as far back as the Civil War.

In fact, in the Civil War it was even worse. Big crowds of spectators would go out from Washington, D.C. and watch the battles as they occurred. In areas where this didn't happen, war correspondents sent reports back to newspapers via telegraph and the accounts were published the next day.

The Civil War really caused the birth of the press as we know it. Several things came together: The telegraph, cheaper printing technology, and demand for accurate reports of battles. People wanted information, not censorship of the news.

I hate the media. They're all newsmongers.
No shame!!
They are losing viewers,though.

Love your poem.

I hate the media. They're all newsmongers.

--------

Yeah, you'd really hate to have the media in the business of reporting the news. But hey, if you don't like it there are always re-runs of Leave It to Beaver on channel 162.

"Yeah, you'd really hate to have the media in the business of reporting the news. But hey, if you don't like it there are always re-runs of Leave It to Beaver on channel 162."

Reporting the news Wilson? So that's what you call them doing when they try to "catch" the guys doing something or "creating" the news to fit their agenda, right? Yeah, OK. Try selling that to someone that doesn't know any better but you won't find those types of suckers on this site. We know too much about your "reporters".

Now there are exceptions. You know the type, the ones that are actually on our side and truthfully "report" the news without putting their own bias and spin on it. The same ones that don't try to throw our troops under the bus or further endanger their lives by "reporting" something they know will inflame the ignorant.

Read Michael Yon sometime and you'll see what a real war correspondent looks like.

But as far as your "reporting" in real time please spare us. Those of us that have family fighting this war would prefer to get our loved ones' fate "reported" to us by official channels thank you very much! And if someone decides to put a micropphone in my face they'd best not be surprised if it takes a proctologist to remove it from where I stick it next!

BTW, in the War Between The States the newspaper accounts were the ONLY place the citizenry could get word of loved ones' deaths or wounds. Mail and official notification could take weeks. The newsreels of Iwo, Okie, et al were a minimum five to ten days old before they hit stateside. Notification of family was already performed by that time. There was NO real time jack squat in WWII. Period!

But then I wouldn't expect you to understand common decency for something so trivial as loved ones' notification. Why let all that touchy feely stuff get in the way of a good story huh? After all, we can't have something so miniscule as a real hero's death not used to good advantage, correct? Gee, who would think "reporting" the death of Marines in a specific Regiment, Battalion, Platoon, or Squad would cause such idiotic responses in the great unwashed family and friends of those mind numbed robots in the military anyway. It's all just false patriotism red state theatrics anyhoo. Ignorant people that would vote Dubya in office couldn't possibly be respected as they are the idiots that are tearing down the country. Who gives a rat's a*s about them anyway. They are beneath contempt and border on moronic. We get your point! Thanks Wilson, we "understand".