I think the hope was that the embeds would come back and fight an internal struggle with the 60’s and 70’s era ‘reporters’ trolling about for bad news. Young reporters embedded into military units had to get a feel for what we were doing and why we were doing it. If their voice is heard, how can it be said that we were not expecting WMD.
The problem is that these reporters are not embedded into units while fighting the terrorist led insurgency – it is too difficult to secure them from danger. Thus, the established ‘Watergate’ reporters with the big names are taking up residence in the Green Zone and reporting on noises in the night.
I still think there is hope for an insurgency in the halls of the media. However, like the GWOT, it will be a long and protracted war.
Helping their hand will be the:
- Ineffectiveness of the insurgency
- Expansion of consensual governance in the region
- and the economic factors noted in your post and validated by the election
I, for one, dumped many of my subscriptions based on concepts provided in the post. I reiterate those reasons at least quarterly when solicited for subscriptions. Soon, business interests will demand that our Watergate media listen to their customers. We demand news and opinion – not just opinion. And I want my news based on named sources. And I want documents released in context of all the other documents and discussions occurring at the time.