Originally Posted by shakran

First off you gotta realize that unless they read it online, the troops aren't reading the washington post. At least, not anywhere close to the publication date.

As a reporter on the front lines, the only concession to the truth you should be making is in not reporting something that could cause actual harm to the troops - i.e. Geraldo the Moron mapping out where his unit was for all the Iraqis to see. But suppressing the truth to try and protect troop morale - - it'd have to be pretty inconsequential truth to do that. I'm not gonna run a story about the soldier who's cheating on his wife, but if the troops I'm stationed with aren't getting the supplies they need to be as safe as possible and fight as effectively as possible, then you're bloody right I'm gonna report it, and I'm gonna report it until the situation changes.

The troops' collective morale isn't gonna be hurt by me saying they're stretched too thin, or they don't have good body armor. They already KNOW that. Their morale sucks because the sons'a bitches that sent them over there didn't give them the numbers or equipment they needed. Their morale sucks because they're stationed over there far longer than they're supposed to be. Blaming the messenger for troop morale is stupid. Let's instead blame the guys at the top who are responsible for putting the troops in this demoralizing position.