The self-absorption and self-elevation of the mainstream media in disparaging our military efforts, complaining about being kept out of the information loop, and asserting their neutrality in the war never cease to inspire shock and disgust.
Some of these reporters sound like spoiled brats completely oblivious to the gravity and sensitivity of the military matters they are covering. It's all about them and their lofty mission to inform the public, irrespective of the risks involved in prematurely releasing classified information.
At Thursday's Centcom briefing, a New York Magazine reporter whined about the quality and timeliness of the information the military was sharing. He asked why General Tommy Franks wasn't at their beck and call, rather than running the war.
General Brooks deftly responded, "First, I would say it's your choice." Translation: "There's the door; don't let it hit you in the rear on your way out." As for Tommy Franks, "He's fighting a war right now."
But there's something worse than their puerile objections to being denied access to details, the release of which could cost American lives. Many media players apparently view themselves as watchdogs over a presumptively corrupt and imperialistic military industrial complex acting at the behest of neoconservative warmongers to make Iraq a wholly-owned American subsidiary.
They ask rhetorical questions with pointed messages instead of those seeking to elicit information. It's as if they are on a mission to prove their lack of bias by being attack dogs. Their reasoning -- in the case of American reporters, at least -- must be that they serve the unique function of safeguarding the First Amendment, which is the highest patriotic calling. As long as they challenge the military loudly, disbelievingly and rudely enough, they are proving their mettle, not to mention their suitability for a Nobel Peace Prize, the Helen Thomas award for reporter-impertinence and invitations to elite cocktail parties in the Beltway/New York milieu.