I think an interesting change is the media themselves.
In the World Wars, reporters attached to the Armed Forces were unashamedly pro-military and pro-victory. If there are exceptions, I would be glad to see them.
I know there was a media storm in 1915 due to the 'shell scandal' -- pre-war ammunition stocks had been too low, and the British Army had to cut back its artillery usage by 1915.
There was a big row in the British House of Commons and the press jumped on board.
But the theme was always, "How can we hurt the Germans more?"
Changed days indeed.
Count me as one of those who trusts most politicians (of all parties) about as much as I trust infomercials ... and count me of one of those who has noticed governments have told huge, history-changing lies to start or spin modern wars. Not all wars and not all governments, but there has been a lot of 'creative truth' bandied about in the last 50 years.
So the media's skepticism is not unwarranted ... but skepticism and cynicism are dangerous cousins.
Therefore, I do like to see a healthy media, because they are one of the checks against a government growing too large or powerful, frankly a threat I fear more than terrorism, as an out-of-control government is a far greater threat to freedom (in my opinion) than even the most vile terrorists (who, are themselves, a considerable threat).
But that's the theory ... as has been pointed out on this site many times, our media is by and large interested in shiny things that can be explained in a two minute segment.
A military funeral or an upset Afghan railing at a camera (out of context) for seven seconds is far more 'punchy' than a dry explanation of reconstruction, or the slow measure of success.
The media seems all to ready to take the government to task over relatively small soap operas like the flag-flap or G-Wagons, but rarely explores tough questions. And that, my friends, is what they should be doing.
What do Canadians have a right to know? The long term plan. The overall military and political objectives. The measures for success. The history of the conflict. The obstacles. The shortfalls of the strategies as they unfold, and the steps being taken to correct them.
Those are tough questions, and the government, DND, and the CF all have answers for them, mostly available on the web. They are dry, long, and complex, and make for bad TV.
And because the answers are unpredictable and may change with time, as a politician, it is dangerous to 'tie up your boat' to closely to one position. So by and large the Commons debates stick to the dramas of 'media allowed to film coffins at Trenton' and the like.
So: politicians are often reticent, the media is generally lazy, and the viewing audience is happy but misses hockey. And soldiers soldier on.
It still strikes me as bizarre that we have to 'sell' our cause to the public. Is that what we are doing? In modern times, I suppose so.
Blind patriotism is gone, which is a good thing, I believe.
But did patriotism go with it? Tragic and costly if it did.
The media do not want to be the cheerleaders of the military or the government. (though some are)
Naturally, we in the military wish the media had our backs 100% of the time.
But they don't. That's their perogative.
It sucks for us, but that's democracy. Pray the media exercise that perogative responsibly.
Having said that, if the media is going to advocate their independent agenda, then so should the military, unashamedly.
And the military agenda is success of the mission, with an emphasis on security and safety of the personnel. So any reporter who threatens that, in any way, should be (temporarily) silenced, as regards the present circumstances of the mission.
They have their job, we have ours. Where they rub up against each other, you eke out a compromise.
Lives trump ratings.
The zillion dollar question is what is the difference between OPSEC and CARSEC (career security - a word I made up) - is the media being locked down to preserve a mission's integrity, or to cover the behind of someone who screwed the pooch or a politician who wants no 'drama'? It's happened before.
The other zillion dollar question is when does the media's 'quest for truth' become a reckless 'race for ratings', at the expense of all things, including the safety and dignity of the soldiers.
I think the key is that the media and the military be prepared to work with each other, and to adapt as the situation unfolds.
I have noticed an alarming trend in the U.S. that those who challenge the government are often called unpatriotic. I would hate to see the same zeitgeist take root here.
I hope the military, the government, the media, and the public, can maintain a respect for each other, even when they disagree.
It's an evolving process.
