Replies

Two other things have been achieved. The power of editors and producers has been cut dramatically. With a real-time feed, there is no possibility of editing the images. Second, commentary about the war really becomes secondary. The tyranny of the experts is contained.

I would amplify this by pointing out that Bush and company have correctly estimated that 'pool' reporting is bad.

With pool reporting, one reporter (a liberal) goes in to 'get the story' and then all the other reporters (liberals) use that video and put their own spin on it. With the media still fixated on having lost in 2000 this would have made an untenable situation for the military.

Instead, they've chosen to divide and conquer.

In essence, every embedded reporter is in competition with every other embedded reporter and is forced- have mercy! - to actually report.

I'd also suggest that any panty waist reporter who tries to slant the news would have to answer for it in a foxhole some night.

This is a good thing.

Sheesh...Stratfor....Katie Couric, what's the difference. Sure some or all of the things mentioned in that article are accurate. But sit back for a moment and ask yourself one other very big question....IS THAT ALL?

Don't you think Bush and the military complex want Saddam to see the hellfire this group is causing? Don't you think they want him to see how we are moving unabated through his countryside? What about Kim in Korea? Don't you think they want him to see our might? Stupid, Stupid media...they still don't get it...hehehe