Should the media SELF-censor military abuses in times of war?

[Marley23]

@Hentor the Barbarian

In what way do the soldiers benefit?

I did argue in my first post before that they don’t benefit. That time I was just going along with the idea in order to talk about the implications that I didn’t like.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Marley23

I did argue in my first post before that they don’t benefit. That time I was just going along with the idea in order to talk about the implications that I didn’t like.

My bad. Sorry.

[BrainGlutton]

@aldiboronti

Are you really saying that the national interest should play no part at all in the decision whether to publish or not? That American journalists are journalists first and US citizens second?

Any country’s journalists should consider themselves journalists first and citizens second, at least to the extent that considerations of national interest should play absolutely no role in their decisions to publish or not publish non-classified information.

@aldiboronti

Publishing ‘unpleasantries’ could cost American servicemen and women their lives. Is that of secondary concern?

It is the “unpleasantries,” not their publication, that are responsible for any public reaction. The longer the press ignores them, the longer they will be allowed to go on and the more devastating the reaction will be when they inevitably do come out.

@aldiboronti

And ‘the people in charge’ were put there by a democratic vote of the American people. Who has a better claim to define the national interest? Journalists?

That is irrelevant. Journalists bear no responsibility for advancing the national interest, except insofar as a fully and accurately informed public is, by definition, in the national interest. The relevant question here is who has a better claim to define news value.

@aldiboronti

Truth is a necessary casualty of war.

It is a usual casualty of war but not a necessary one.