Patriotism
Why would Newsweek have printed their toiletgate piece - even if they knew it to be true?
In wartime, as in life, bad things happen and mistakes happen. But who would want to publicly air the dirty laundry, especially if it would damage America's cause and her fighting people? Who would think that Abu Graib was a bigger story than repeated beheadings and suicide bombings? Or Saddam's mass graves? It's as if a few incidents of American mistreatment of prisoners of war during WW2 had received more headlines than the slaughter of the Jews - and Saddam did operate a kind of holocaust of his own.
If a journalist identifies themselves as an American, then it is their duty as a citizen to self-censor during wartime. It doesn't matter how you feel about the war: there were pacifists during WW1 and WW2 and Korea, but they weren't going emotionally anti-American during those wars, except for the Communists.
I have come up with two possible answers to my question. The more benign is what Laura Ingraham said last night - they see themselves as "citizens of the world" and not of the US. (But which world?, I ask. It's a big world.) The second is to see more malevolence - to see a reflex to undermine any American cause especially during a conservative administration.
In either case, I see it as immature, disloyal, dangerous, and destructive to the very country that gave you all you have, including the freedom to behave in traitorous ways. This isn't the 1960s, and it just isn't cool anymore. It is shameful.
Grow up, get real, put down your cocktail and and take a good, hard look at yourselves, journalists. Please.
Update from Ed.: Prager agrees with Barrister.
