So Some McChrystal Comments Were Made off the Record ?

[taurusowner]

Except I didn't make up the scenario.  That was a real question posed during a forum of media types back in the Vietnam era. 

From the article:

These were two star TV journalists: Peter Jennings of World News Tonight and ABC, and Mike Wallace of 6o Minutes and CBS. Ogletree brought them into the same hypothetical war. He asked Jennings to imagine that he worked for a network that had been in contact with the enemy North Kosanese government. After much pleading, the North Kosanese had agreed to let Jennings and his news crew into their country, to film behind the lines and even travel with military units. Would Jennings be willing to go? Of course, Jennings replied. Any reporter would-and in real wars reporters from his network often had. But while Jennings and his crew are traveling with a North Kosanese unit, to visit the site of an alleged atrocity by American and South Kosanese troops, they unexpectedly cross the trail of a small group of American and South Kosanese soldiers. With Jennings in their midst, the northern soldiers set up a perfect ambush, which will let them gun down the Americans and Southerners, every one. What does Jennings do? Ogletree asks. Would he tell his cameramen to "Roll tape!" as the North Kosanese opened fire? What would go through his mind as he watched the North Kosanese prepare to ambush the Americans? Jennings sat silent for about fifteen seconds after Ogletree asked this question. "Well, I guess I wouldn't," he finally said. "I am going to tell you now what I am feeling, rather than the hypothesis I drew for myself. If I were with a North Kosanese unit that came upon Americans, I think that I personally would do what I could to warn the Americans." Even if it means losing the story? Ogletree asked.

Even though it would almost certainly mean losing my life, Jennings replied. "But I do not think that I could bring myself to participate in that act. That's purely personal, and other reporters might have a different reaction." Immediately Mike Wallace spoke up. "I think some other reporters would have a different reaction," he said, obviously referring to himself. "They would regard it simply as a story they were there to cover." "I am astonished, really," at Jennings's answer, Wallace saida moment later. He turned toward Jennings and began to lecture him: "You're a reporter. Granted you're an American"-at least for purposes of the fictional example; Jennings has actually retained Canadian citizenship. "I'm a little bit at a loss to understand why, because you're an American, you would not have covered that story." Ogletree pushed Wallace. Didn't Jennings have some higher duty, either patriotic or human, to do something other than just roll film as soldiers from his own country were being shot? "No," Wallace said flatly and immediately. "You don't have a higher duty. No. No. You're a reporter!"

Jennings and Wallace clearly stated a desire to go behind enemy lines to see the war from the other side.  So your argument of "well then they should just not go in the first place" is entirely invalid.  They DID want to go.  And Wallace not only wanted to go, but still considered his status as a reporter as more important than anything else, including being an American.

And that is the point I am making.  You are attributing some moral fiber to there people where there is none.  Their commitment is and always has been to themselves, their own ratings, and their ability to break a story.  You see a contradiction, but you incorrectly attribute it to me.  There is indeed a contradiction, but it's the media suffering from it, not me.  When you look at Hastings' willingness to disregard is off the record agreement and Wallace's commitment to volunteering to watch the enemy kill Americans, you see these as opposites, and one must "pick one" as you said it.  But they're not opposites.  They are symptoms of the same source: overwhelming selfishness.  Both Hastings and Wallace in the hypothetical actually wanted the same thing: to break a good story.  One had to ignore a commitment to do so, the other had to ignore his own citizenship.  But both are and were willing to throw away whatever guise of morals they had in order to get to the bottom line.  Getting their name on a sensational story.

[Perd Hapley]

Huh?  You're reading a whole lot into what I said.  I would have to agree that leftists tend to have a lack of civic virtue, hence their devotion to a reprehensible politics.  And most journalists being leftists...

That being said, I still don't see how Hawkmoon is being inhuman or morally relativist.  He's saying that journalists should have a moral code, and should stick to it in all situations.  He's not saying that Mike Wallace was right. 

[taurusowner]

He's saying that journalists should have a moral code

And talking about what should or shouldn't be is irrelevant. Journalists, as a rule, don't have a moral code beyond "look out for number one."  We can talk all day about whether a person should agree to go on the patrol in the first place, or whether revealing off the record statements to get a story is something someone should do.  But again, talking about what should or shouldn't be is not relevant.

Hawkmoon seems to be looking at the two situations as opposites.  One reporter breaking his "journalistic ethics" to get a book deal, and the other upholding his journalistic ethics no matter what.  Hence his statement to me "Which way do you want it? Pick one."  But I'll say it again, Hawkmoon does not see that the two actions which seem totally opposed, are actual extremely similar.  If you look at them under the lens of "is this reporter doing whatever he can to get his name in the papers" then you find yourself with a "Yes" on both counts, and the seemingly opposite nature of the two actions vanishes.

Which brings me to my initial statement.  There is not "journalistic ethics".  That is a concept that a reporter uses when it suits them in order to make actions that would otherwise be deplorable, seem ok.  And when these ethics get in the way of the real bottom line (breaking a story first), they go out the window.

[Hawkmoon]

Ragnar, did you see this part?

I doubt Hawkmoon is OK with American journalists watching silently as American troops walk into an ambush.  It looks like he's saying they shouldn't take assignments that would conflict with their duty as Americans, or humane persons, etc. Personally, I can hardly imagine going along with an NVA patrol, and I would expect them to kill me immediately, whenever I became a liability for them. 

Thank you. At least one person can read. That is exactly the point.

[taurusowner]

And does the fact that they claimed they   would enthusiastically volunteer for the patrol mean nothing to you?

I can read btw.

[tyme]

And talking about what should or shouldn't be is irrelevant. Journalists, as a rule, don't have a moral code beyond "look out for number one."  We can talk all day about whether a person should agree to go on the patrol in the first place, or whether revealing off the record statements to get a story is something someone should do.  But again, talking about what should or shouldn't be is not relevant.

Hawkmoon seems to be looking at the two situations as opposites.  One reporter breaking his "journalistic ethics" to get a book deal, and the other upholding his journalistic ethics no matter what.  Hence his statement to me "Which way do you want it? Pick one."  But I'll say it again, Hawkmoon does not see that the two actions which seem totally opposed, are actual extremely similar.  If you look at them under the lens of "is this reporter doing whatever he can to get his name in the papers" then you find yourself with a "Yes" on both counts, and the seemingly opposite nature of the two actions vanishes.

Which brings me to my initial statement.  There is not "journalistic ethics".  That is a concept that a reporter uses when it suits them in order to make actions that would otherwise be deplorable, seem ok.  And when these ethics get in the way of the real bottom line (breaking a story first), they go out the window.

I am confused.

If a reporter is embedded with the U.S. military, your position is that they should violate their agreement not to report OTR/classified info if they have reason to believe American soldiers will die as a result of keeping OTR info to themselves?

If a reporter agrees to embed with enemy forces, and is willing to accept the risk of being killed, don't you think adhering to the terms (not revealing OTR info) is in everyone's best interest?  What a reporter might be able to reveal to friendly forces after the experience is certainly more valuable than if enemy forces had no embedded reporters at all, which would obviously be the enemy's policy after the first instance of a reporter revealing OTR info... not to mention they would instantly kill all other embedded reporters if they hadn't already.

[taurusowner]

I would hope that an American would be an American, and place America first, no matter what their job might be.  It's pretty simple. You're embedded with American soldiers? Don't betray Americans.  You're embedded with enemy soldiers for whatever reason?  Don't betray Americans.

[Ned Hamford]

Would it be so bad to let a reporter from a 'neutral' third country get the scoop?

Also, I think we can all acknowledge that a sizable, if not majority, of reporters would roll tape on that enemy ambush, not report the torture of US prisoners then walk right back into the American base and break the story on an enemy unlawful combatant being tortured to save those aforementioned prisoners with a heavy condescending tone towards the inhumanity of the US military.  The story being uncovered when that enemy soldier was receiving the best medical care the unit had to offer after he gave the information. 

[tyme]

No matter what side they're embedded with, reporters (should) operate on the premise that reporting what they can, typically after the fact, will improve citizens' understanding of the war on both sides, leading to better decisions by the electorate in the future deciding on candidates based on their stated foreign policy goals.*

Reporters violating off-the-record or classified-info agreements torpedo that entire concept by ensuring reporters are only given access to purely one-sided, on-the-record sales pitches.  It doesn't matter which side reporters want to embed themselves with.  If they violate their agreements then their access is revoked, which is worse (long-term) for everyone.

Furthermore, a reporter embedded with enemy forces has to expect frequent disinformation, both on- and off-the-record, but particularly off-the-record if the enemy is the least bit competent.  If a reporter reports such stuff, the enemy wins twice, first by potentially getting U.S. forces to prepare for a non-existent attack, and second by revealing U.S. reporters as spies rather than merely unwitting dupes.

*Obviously, big media are not interested in long-term education of the electorate; they're interested in ratings first, and driving their backers' foreign policy agendas second.  The net effect is the same, however, since without continuing access (which is contingent on abiding by agreements), the media loses ratings and the ability to twist "news" into supporting a predetermined foreign policy view.  Then they have to find something other than the war to report on.

[Hawkmoon]

Also, I think we can all acknowledge that a sizable, if not majority, of reporters would roll tape on that enemy ambush, not report the torture of US prisoners then walk right back into the American base and break the story on an enemy unlawful combatant being tortured to save those aforementioned prisoners with a heavy condescending tone towards the inhumanity of the US military.

Don't presume to speak for me, Mate. You may choose to believe that "a sizable majority" of reporters would be so biased as to deliberately ignore torture perpetrated by the enemy while publicizing similar torture committed by us, but I don't believe that.

That does not totally invalidate your opening statement, though. I could acknowledge that ... but I don't.

In point of strict fact, most reporters are not immoral -- they are amoral. As my late friend, the editor who became a professor, put it: "Body count sells newspapers." If there's blood to be found, they'll report it regardless of whose blood it is and who caused it to be shed.

[roo_ster]

Don't presume to speak for me, Mate. You may choose to believe that "a sizable majority" of reporters would be so biased as to deliberately ignore torture perpetrated by the enemy while publicizing similar torture committed by us, but I don't believe that.(2)

That does not totally invalidate your opening statement, though. I could acknowledge that ... but I don't.

In point of strict fact, most reporters are not immoral -- they are amoral(1). As my late friend, the editor who became a professor, put it: "Body count sells newspapers." If there's blood to be found, they'll report it regardless of whose blood it is and who caused it to be shed.

(1) Ragnar ought to thank you for making his point for him.

(2) Well, it doesn't happen with reporters who love their country, are patriotic, etc. 

We can see puh-lenty of examples of foreign reporters taking their country's part on any given issue.  America is almost alone in that its contingent of MSM reporters, for the most part, don't like America much and are perfectly willing to kick it in the jimmy savages who still piss in the same stream they drink from get the benefit of the doubt and most the breaks.

Also, never forget the herd mentality most MSM exhibit.  A fine example is the reporting Michael Yon is doing from Thailand.  Oh, the Thai violence is interesting, but the examination of the reporters' actions, mindset, and herd (can I hear a "moo?") mentality is more interesting by far.

[Ned Hamford]

I live in NY, and have spent a sizable amount of my life in NYC.  This may have skewed my exposure.

While I know good reporters exist, my own experience would put them at less than 1 in 100.

I've been to events hosted for legal discussion where in a sea of suits 8 folks in ripped jeans get out and shout death threats at federal judges.  Ever news article reported it as widespread disagreement and outrage throughout the crowd.  Heck, in a High School science event, the reporter who showed up honestly inquired if the baseball sized model of a type of pollen was actual size and got huffy and disappointed when she was told it was not.  I think I could go on for a goodly time, but its already making me depressed and disheartened.  I can say feeling quite certain that I've never seen an idealist in any of journalism courses at the colleges I've gone to.  I think they get mocked into other careers quite early on, leaving herds of amoral folk drunk on their own power.  I think we have all seen those clips of news reporters at tragedies absolutely thrilled to have a chance at the spotlight.