What is it About Today's Press?

This morning I noted how the press has gone "AWOL" in its coverage of recent progress in Iraq (while intent to make big stories from the rants of antiwar reporters). Thus I thought I'd follow up that entry with Wordsmith's powerful essay, "The NYTimes Once Again Shapes the Battle Space."

Be sure to read the whole thing, but I especially liked this part:

What is it about today's press that has impaired judgment, given aid and comfort to America's enemies, endangered lives, prolonged the conflict, and sabotaged and undermined anti-terror programs by publishing leaks regarding such things as CIA secret prisons, NSA surveillance program, the SWIFT program? Were 32 frontpage stories on abu Ghraib published in the New York Times really warranted? Did the act itself inflame the Arab world and create more terrorists, or was it the media hype about the abuses, which did so? What about Haditha? Who has done more damage to the war effort? Soldiers on the frontlines to win hearts and minds, protesters out on the streets, politicians back in Washington, or perceptions created and driven by the media in its coverage of the war? The Bush Administration is held accountable for its failures in prosecuting the Iraq battle with zero percent casualties; but where is the media accountability?

I replied at the post:

I can't answer the question, but I just refer to my framework of postmodern culture, where there's really no good or bad, or if anything, to the leftists, we're the "bad guys."