RE: No Respect

US Constitution

Amendment 1 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The right to question government officials belongs to the people.

No Respect, No Respect I Tell Ya

We'll just never sink reach journalistic standards. We're only out to tell positive stories and what's seen on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're so transparent (sigh). AND we were hand picked by the Pentagon...who knew?

Ken Silverstein at Harper's Magazine says this:

The Surrogates unit arranges regular conference calls during which senior Pentagon officials brief retired military officials, civilian defense and national security analysts, pundits, and bloggers. A few moderates are invited to take part, but the list of participants skews far, far to the right. The Pentagon essentially feeds participants the talking points, bullet points, and stories it wants told.
<...>
Before these bloggers start to complain that they’ve done nothing wrong, I’d like to ask how they would feel if a group of handpicked, administration-friendly liberal bloggers had done the same thing during the Clinton years. I believe they would have objected vociferously–and I would have agreed with them. No one, on any side, should let themselves be used to spread the administration’s gospel. At least not anyone who can pretend to journalistic standards.

Ken, I have some advice for you. READ MILBLOGS!
It is not the Pentagon trying to spread it's gospel, IT'S THE TROOPS IGNORED BY THE MSM, FIGHTING AND DYING TO GET THEIR VOICES HEARD!

Grim at BlackFive responds:

Mr. Silverstein is a professional journalist, and is here mostly attempting to defend his guild. There is, Black Five readers well know, no weight to the charge that these Roundtables are about parroting Administration anything. For the one thing, we don't talk to Administration officials, but to career military men. The journalist is the one in error, by treating career servicemen as if they were political figures. The journalist is also in error by suggesting that it is a disservice to the public to let the public read the actual words of military officers, instead of our filtered narrative. We ask them questions, often questions that readers have asked us to ask them; then we post the transcript, and readers can judge for themselves.
"You're not a real journalist" is his way of saying "only professionals like me should be allowed to talk to high officials, not uncredentialed folks like you." This is about protecting the idea that "the press" has a special status or stature, and that mere bloggers or citizens do not deserve access to important people.

Weekly Standard has more here

Our readers are quite capable of drawing their own conclusions, I wonder if Silverstein would trust his to do the same. One thing is for sure, reader's of Harper's would be well served by exposure to what this country's military officers have to say about the war--it isn't always positive, and, in fact, the calls typically include frank discussion of the significant challenges the military faces in Iraq. I'd suggest Silverstein interrupt his busy writing schedule to do just a little bit of reporting and join us for a call (anyone 'who needs such information' can contact me via email). He might be surprised to learn what actually goes on: bloggers putting hard questions to commanders in the field and writing up the answers without spin. Scandalous!

And if you're interested in reading the transcrpts of past or future Roundtables you can read them here in this "public Forum"