Posted on 10/13/2007 7:13:36 AM PDT by jdm
It seems that half of the message retired General Richard Sanchez intended to deliver missed the cut at most newsrooms, and with most bloggers. Typical among the reports of his blistering oration is the front-page treatment given by the Washington Post's Josh White, the entire first half of Sanchez's speech -- found in its entirety here -- gets reduced to a single paragraph at the end of the story. Why? Well, it turns out that Sanchez considered his first target the media itself, which he blames for a large part of the problems he sees in Iraq (via Power Line, reformatted by me to normal case):
Almost invariably, my perception is that the sensationalistic value of these assessments is what provided the edge that you seek for self aggrandizement [sic] or to advance your individual quest for getting on the front page with your stories! As I understand it, your measure of worth is how many front page stories you have written and unfortunately some of you will compromise your integrity and display questionable ethics as you seek to keep America informed. This is much like the intelligence analysts whose effectiveness was measured by the number of intelligence reports he produced. For some, it seems that as long as you get a front page story there is little or no regard for the "collateral damage" you will cause. Personal reputations have no value and you report with total impunity and are rarely held accountable for unethical conduct.
Given the near instantaneous ability to report actions on the ground, the responsibility to accurately and truthfully report takes on an unprecedented importance. The speculative and often uninformed initial reporting that characterizes our media appears to be rapidly becoming the standard of the industry. An Arab proverb states - "four things come not back: the spoken word, the spent arrow, the past, the neglected opportunity." Once reported, your assessments become conventional wisdom and nearly impossible to change. Other major challenges are your willingness to be manipulated by "high level officials" who leak stories and by lawyers who use hyperbole to strengthen their arguments. Your unwillingness to accurately and prominently correct your mistakes and your agenda driven biases contribute to this corrosive environment.
All of these challenges combined create a media environment that does a tremendous disservice to America. Over the course of this war tactically insignificant events have become strategic defeats for America because of the tremendous power and impact of the media and by extension you the journalist. In many cases the media has unjustly destroyed the individual reputations and careers of those involved. We realize that because of the near real time reporting environment that you face it is difficult to report accurately. In my business one of our fundamental truths is that "the first report is always wrong." Unfortunately, in your business "the first report" gives Americans who rely on the snippets of CNN, if you will, their "truths" and perspectives on an issue. As a corollary to this deadline driven need to publish "initial impressions or observations" versus objective facts there is an additional challenge for us who are the subject of your reporting. When you assume that you are correct and on the moral high ground on a story because we have not respond to questions you provided is the ultimate arrogance and distortion of ethics. One of your highly respected fellow journalists once told me that there are some amongst you who "feed from a pig's trough." if that is who I am dealing with then I will never respond otherwise we will both get dirty and the pig will love it. This does not mean that your story is accurate.
Given that, it seems highly ironic that the journalists covering the story attempted to cover up the acidic, biting, and mostly accurate criticisms of their own performance in this war while giving front-page treatment to Sanchez' criticisms of the political structure at the same time. If Sanchez has such credibility and standing to bring this kind of criticism to bear on Washington, why didn't the Post and other news agencies give the same level of exposure to his media criticisms as well? He basically accuses them of cynically selling out the soldiers to defeat American efforts to win the war, and made sure that those accusations came first before his assessment of the political failures, but you'd never know that from the Post.
The Post then goes on to obfuscate a key part of the second half of Sanchez' speech. While he criticizes the Bush administration in sharp terms, Sanchez blames the Democrats in equal measure. He calls out partisans on all sides for exploiting the war for their own political benefit rather than the good of the nation, and blames the lack of range for strategic options on the corrosive debate that has hamstrung the range of choices.
And most importantly, none of the press has managed to pick up on this key sequence in Sanchez' broadside at the American political establishment:
America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq. A precipitous withdrawal will unquestionably lead to chaos that would endanger the stability of the greater Middle East. If this occurs it would have significant adverse effects on the international community. Coalition and American force presence will be required at some level for the foreseeable future. Given the lack of a grand strategy we must move rapidly to minimize that force presence and allow the Iraqis maximum ability to exercise their sovereignty in achieving a solution.
Iraq is still a vital national interest to the United States. We have a responsibility to get it right, and our political establishment needs to unite to find the grand strategy that serves that purpose rather than their own selfish desires. In fact, Sanchez made clear that the media has to do the same as well. Unfortunately, the media doesn't have the guts to report that honestly.
It’s about time someone call the lamestream media what it is: anti-America media, the enemy within.
It’s about time someone call the lamestream media what it is: anti-America media, the enemy within.
Appreciate this ping, C#4—thanks!
Bump for later read...
My reaction to the text of the speech was different that that of the MSM. I pasted the text of LTG Sanchez’s speech into my word processor. It was 13 pages long. He criticized the press for 5 pages. I think that is significant. He concluded this section on the top of page six, suggesting that the press should be more ethical and reform itself:
FINALLY, I WILL LEAVE THIS SUBJECT WITH A QUESTION THAT WE MUST ASK OURSELVES—WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE ETHICAL STANDARDS OF THE PROFESSION IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT OUR DEMOCRACY DOES NOT CONTINUE TO BE THREATENED BY THIS DANGEROUS SHIFT AWAY FROM YOUR SACRED DUTY OF PUBLIC ENLIGHTENMENT?
As I read the rest of the speech, I see a call for greater unity within the Executive Branch and between the Executive and Legislative Branches of Government. This unity has been lacking:
THE THREAT OF EXTREMISM IS REAL AND DEMANDS UNIFIED ACTION AT THE SAME LEVELS DEMONSTRATED BY OUR FOREFATHERS DURING WORLD WAR I AND WORLD WAR II. AMERICA HAS FAILED TO DATE.
In World Wars I and II, the President received support from the opposition party. This has been lacking in the War on Terror, as it was for much of the Cold War.
Most importantly, is there a real threat?
AS A NATION WE MUST RECOGNIZE THAT THE ENEMY WE FACE IS COMMITTED TO DESTROYING OUR WAY OF LIFE. THIS ENEMY IS ARGUABLY MORE DANGEROUS THAN ANY THREAT WE FACED IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY.
>> Not sure what you mean? General Sanchez, in my opinion, followed his orders, as he should have, while in uniform.
I’m not in any way questioning Sanchez’ valor. The essence of what’s being reported to the masses, however, is the unfortunate effect of the address Sanchez released to a broken media fair. I don’t dispute his military assessments and don’t agree with all his political commentary. I’m curious where his comments fit for the greater good of our military and diplomatic efforts. No doubt those enamored with Sanchez will be less critical and look to the brighter side. I’m not sure the address Sanchez gave exhibits the same level of enthusiasm as the defense brought forth to amend what he had to say.
Unfortunately, military strategy cannot begin at the water’s edge with a media that maliciously misrepresents what the military is about, what it does, and what it tries to communicate and accomplish.
My comments regarding Luttrell meant to emphasize how those brave and honorable men opted to risk their lives rather than suffer false pronouncements of a bias media and pop culture indifferent to their efforts. Luttrell’s comments on Levin’s show were made I believe on Oct 12th, 2007 and should be heard independently of my remarks. My comments regarding Luttrell and Sanchez are not quotes nor do they claim to represent what either man has said or thinks.
????
Again please???
>> ????
>> Again please???
Thanks for the exhibit.
Brit Hume will be covering these remarks on his show tonight at 6pm...he just introduced it and presumably will be discussed later on this evening, and perhaps even as part of the panel. Its must see TV...
Too bad; it was just a grapevine segment. Perhaps it will grow legs over the next few days and make it out of the grapevine and into the panel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.