Quote from Madison:
if the story were just an unsolicited, independent media offering, then maybe. but the command, acting on behalf of the taxpayer, did much more than 'report an action' - it orchestrated, directed, edited, and produced nearly the entirety of US domestic war coverage. it restricted access to information and censored its dissemination.
Generally speaking, your arguments reflect a total lack of realism about military operations. I'm not sure whether it originates in your hostility toward the military and US policy, in ignorance, or in some peculiar set of fantasies about the proper conduct of defense policy.
Specifically, what is your evidence for the claim that "the command... orchestrated, directed, and produced nearly the entirety of US domestic war coverage"? It appears to me that the Pentagon provided access and passed on such information as it possesed while trying to preserve operational security. As for restricting access and engaging in censorship: Of course, it did. Only someone who was hoping that the US and allies would lose, or at least suffer a high number of casualties, would want the military to do anything else.
in this case they packaged this story for a particular effect. they released edited video with an accompanying narrative. they were aware of the effect, and of the kneejerk frenzy it induced in the media. if that effect was unjustified it should be their duty to say so.
As I understand it, the Pentagon stands by
its story, if not, of course, by all embellishments and inaccuracies produced in the media. When questioned on this or any subject, its spokespeople should answer honestly to the best of their ability, and within security parameters. Otherwise, I don't believe it's the Pentagon's responsibility to gauge the quality and tone of national discourse, and attempt to weigh in - except where doing so is relevant to their mission.
or is it the taxpayer that should bear the burden of investigation to assure that the "milking" military and its media outlets are accurate?
If greater oversight is needed, then, yes, it's up to the political process to produce it - if that's what you mean. How else would you arrange things?
Your position appears to be that if the Pentagon releases any information that happens to make it look good, or puts any favorable cast on its operations, then it's violated some norm of conduct. Most people would consider that to be an absurd position, and not only because there is some military justification for accentuating morale-boosting stories, in particular if they convey the idea that every effort will be made to rescue POWs. Of course, if you, or some journalist or pundit, can show that the Pentagon has knowingly offered up falsehoods, then there's something to talk about. How significant it would be is another question.
In any event, this is all very far from Scheer's wild accusations and ill-founded exaggerations.
