But how about the trial lawyers? While there are proximate cause issues around the reckless negligence of Michael Isikoff and his editors and the loss of life and property in the Muslim world, the plaintiffs' bar has never hesitated to tackle far more remote connections. But I doubt they suits will be descending on Jalalabad as they did in Bhopal or wherever an oil tanker founders.Hewitt thinks that misreporting a story that stirs up violent thugs to riot and murder innocent people is comparable to a factory leaking poison and killing thousands. I wish he would elaborate on lawsuits with more remote connections than the one he is promoting here.
Hewitt also longs for the "Patriotic" reporting of World War II:
There were also plenty of discussions on whether one or two sources are enough when the issue could affect national security. Can you imagine a similar conversation surrounding any reporting during World War II that had a negative effect on the war effort? The default position of American media after the Pentagon Papers is that all disclosure of potential American wrongdoing is "good." But that premise --not widely shared outside of elite liberal circles-- is certainly not applicable when there is no wrongdoing to begin with.
Is it a good thing that the media didn't examine the Unconditional Surrender policy or expose the Katyn Forest massacre commited by our allie, "Uncle Joe" Stalin? Isn't it at least possible that our national security was harmed by the media's failure to seriously question some of Roosevelt's policys in the 1940s?
Hewitt wants a servile media (until Hillary Clinton gets elected) that parrots the Republican agend -- and he wants Congress to "subpoena some Washington Post (Newsweek's parent company) executives" and bully them into servility. I, on the other hand think the "MSM" has been incompetent--focusing on what Bush did in 1973 istead of 2003, for exaple -- and far too deferential towards the Bush administration and I'm glad we have alternatives.