@engineer,
engineer wrote:I think that is true for run of the mill soldiers, but not for the general in charge. Part of his job is being a spokesman for the military.
... and there's no showing that he was a bad spokesman when he gave press conferences and such. But the whole appeal of embedded journalism is that the content in the reporting is 'the real stuff', as opposed to the message-disciplined spokesman bullshit you hear at Washington press conferences.
My point is, the White House can't have it both ways. If it wants its generals to be spokespeople, let them give press conferences and don't let them sniff around in their daily business. That's what CEOs do in their corporations---they wouldn't
dream of allowing journalists to follow their lieutenants around. Alternatively, if the White House wants embedded journalists who then talk about 'what's realy going on' don't complain if that's what they're hearing, and if that's what they're writing about.
If you ask anyone else, they're supposed to say "you'll have to ask the general." To some extent, this is true of the general's staff as well. A major or colonel on staff is chosen for his discretion and competency. These weren't run of the mill G.I.'s, it was the general in charge and his staff. Absolutely, they should have known what they were doing and they are responsible for every word.
[/quote]