Too Much Freedom of the Press?

During the whole fracas with General McChrystal a few days ago I couldn't help but wonder why the General felt so comfortable with the press that he felt that he could say whatever he wanted to Rolling Stone and that it wouldn't come out in some way shape or form. Sure you can make the argument that it wasn't the General's fault that comments were reported when he wasn't aware that they would be part of the final news article in the magazine or that he was being quoted on the record rather than off, but still, shouldn't a part of him have been a little cautious, especially in light of the fact that the press is practically everywhere in politics these days?

I mean I remember when the Marines were initially deployed to Somalia back in the early part of Clinton's first term as President, I couldn't help but wonder why the press was being informed of the time and location (the middle of the night to be exact) that the Marines would be arriving; that way the press could cover the arriving troops. Perhaps it was meant to be a morale booster for the troops and the people left back at home who were wondering why the country was deploying soldiers to a nation that didn't have anything that benefited our country. Still, perhaps the rationale was to scare the opposition (since we knew Saddam watched CNN to learn more about our military movements during the first Gulf War) into realizing that our armed forces were ready to take them down.

But doesn't anyone find this a little much these days? I mean I suppose again the rationale behind embedding troops with the forces in Iraq was primarily to garner support since many felt the invasion of Iraq wasn't warranted. I suppose that by having access to our soldiers, the press would be less inclined to talk bad about the war and show it in a more positive light. While I think that was largely the case, I don't think the military (and their leaders more precisely) could be so naive as to think that the press would forever be on their side. After all, support for the war has been on the decline and in Afghanistan it was even more so, so if the press (which is always looking for some angle to sell more newspapers) could find chinks in the armor that the government and military are in lockstep on the strategy for Afghanistan, wouldn't they seek to exploit it?

I guess what I'm feeling is that while I think the press has a Constitutional right to report anything and everything that they can to keep the public informed, sometimes that freedom can backfire and cause more harm than good. I mean there's probably a really good reason why the press would want to report things but still, there's an old saying that "discretion is the better part of valor" and if the press (who sometimes feel that simple embedding is enough to warrant considering themselves 'blooded warriors') then shouldn't they do what they can to ensure that the truth (more than sensationalism) is reported? Break news stories but don't break it with the sole intention of selling more newspapers or magazines.