I agree SA2. I was watching something about the fight for Iwo Jima a couple months ago. One thing that stuck was how the number of Japanese defenders was grossly underestimated. How would THAT have gone down today? I guess the newsies would print "Roosevelt underestimates Japanese." Followed by a daily count of our casualties. How long would the general public have been able to stomach the war especially since Iwo was assaulted almost four years after Pearl was attacked? Sure hindsight is 20/20 as they say, and we won. But how many years would it have taken after Pearl for the newsies to start questioning why we were still at war? We had one of the largest militaries in the world at that time - why after years have we still not gotten justice for being attacked at Pearl?
I think there's too much information coming from the newsies now when they cover war. Too much and too current. How long did it take to release news of what was happening at the fronts? There's a line between how much we have a "right" to know and how much we really don't need to know in my opinion. Even for us here at work, we are reminded that even though we may have clearances, we don't need to know everything - only what we need to do our job. For example, we didn't need to know so much about that Army sniper in Iraq - his name and rank, and especially the picture of his unit's "hide." I hope they were long gone when that article came out. Come to think about it, the PAO probably needs to change what it releases also..
