I'm sure others will explain it better than I can, but here's my take on it. The idiotic reporter bit the hand that probably saved his worthless life. His sole aim was to make the Marine--and the military, and by extension, the President himself--look as bad as possible. The Iraqis have been boobytrapping the wounded and dead over there--and those who weren't boobytrapped would "play dead" then fire on people checking on their health.
In my estimation, the reporter was no better than the "play dead" terrorists.
So far I have only seen one statement from the reporter: Sites said: "I have witnessed the Marines behaving as a disciplined and professional force throughout this offensive. In this particular case, it certainly was a confusing situation to say the least."
That doesn't sound to me like he's trying to make the Marine look as bad as possible. All the reporter did was run his camera. It's not his fault what images the camera captured.
I fail to understand the venom people have for someone who was invited to tag along with the Marines and was doing his job. His job isn't to take only pretty pictures of smiling Marines after it's all over. His job is dangerous and it's a service - don't you appreciate the battle images we've seen? Don't you appreciate being able to see our Marines in action and see the level of competency that hard work and hard training promote? I certainly do. Many here (myself included) defend the actions of the Marine. How can you defend the Marine and condemn the reporter who did nothing more than run his camera. It would be one thing if he were out running his mouth and saying the Marines are blood thirsty animals and killing innocents left and right - that's what Kerry did, right? But that's not what Sites is saying. I've gone to his blog and I don't like some of the phrases he uses that in my mind glorify the struggle of the insurgents, but I fail to see what he's done to bring so many calls for his death or a severe beating.