No, it ain't journalism. Or even reporting. Three items come to mind.

First, the journalist, at least theoretically, is supposed to bring attention to such items by writing his own stories, not inducing others to create stories. If that journalist thought the scrap metal was a story, he should have written a story rather than coach a soldier to ask a question.

Second, there's the fact that the journalist broke ethics by intervening in a story.

Third, it seems to me that the point of being a journalist is that a journalist can ask questions without fear of professional retribution. Inducing somebody whose career could be affected by his question to ask that question is just plain cowardly.

--|PW|--

I totally agree with you, but two points of interest:

1. Did he approach them about the scrap metal issue, or vice versa. His coaching is wrong, no doubt, but this is a notable distinction to how bad it was. As it is, I suspect that he approached them.

2. From experience I can say that there are a lot of fine lines between reporting and setting up situations. I walk people into traps all the time, but telling them what to say ... that's acting. Stage management. And then to pretend to just happen to report it as it happened ...

Most of my moderation on this comes from the fact that this is a Drudge treatment, but an e-mail is an e-mail, I suppose.

Don't you have the feeling that his best day ever will rapidly turn into his worst day ever.

I'll bet it never crossed his mind that coaching the soldiers on what to ask was just plain wrong.

You're right. There's a little too much stage managing here for my case. I understand that the reporter wanted to get the armor story out, but a better way to do it would have been for him to pressure his home editors to pester the wires about it.

I am also sympathetic to his situation w/ Rumsfeld not taking quesitons from reporters at the gathering.

But this stage management smells more like PR than journalism to me.

--|PW|--

That wasn't journalism. That was media manipulation at a nose bleed level ... a PR flack's wet dream. He could have just written and filed the story about the lack of armor; instead he coached "his" soldiers in what to say, knowing full well the cameras would be rolling and a clip like that would get blasted across the country and provide fodder for pundits that would drag out to the Sunday morning TV chatters.

But he was such a mook he spilled the beans about the set-up before the thing got enough traction. Schmuck!

I only wish he could have brought in the crew from 60 minutes.

I agree that he should have thought, or at least warned, the guys they might get in trouble.

I got in trouble like that once when I responded to an email from the CEO of a multinational company I worked for. Boy did I hear it.

Also, what happened to the interview with the Marines that said, even though they 'get leftovers' they are 'making do'? That news report seems to have dissapeared and I can't find it anywhere.

---
http://eyesontheball.blogspot.com News satire that's right for you

So the soldiers aren't capable of deciding for themselves if they should ask the question suggested to them by the reporter? It's all the reporter's fault?

Does it really matter if the reporter suggested the question to a soldier? Had the soldier asked the question w/o prompting would the truth about armor (whatever it really is) be any different?

What I'm saying is what difference does it make because the truth of the issue in question does not vary depending on who's doing the asking.

PlutosDad - as an aside - why should it be a big deal that you responded to the CEO? I wouldn't want to work for that company.

Why should hierarchy get in the way of efficiency? And the truth?

So the soldiers aren't capable of deciding for themselves if they should ask the question suggested to them by the reporter? It's all the reporter's fault?

Well you raise a valid point there. But the key to analyzing that rationally relies on breaking up the situation up into two different issues. On one side you have the issue of soldier's grievances and body armor, along with their right and desire to ask Rumsfeld the question.

On the other side you have a reporter overstepping the divide between reporting the news and making it.

It's possible to have disparate opinions on the two issues, though ideologues on left and right will tend to boil it down to a solitary issue.

"It's all the reporter's fault?" boils it down to one issue - that the questions were somehow inherently "bad." It can't be viewed from that single good/bad angle, IMO.

The reporter made the news, he didn't just report what happened. There is a very large likelihood this Q would have never been asked if the NGman hadn't been coached. It also wouldn't have been hard for the reporter to pick out a couple of guys from the unit he knew he could manipulate. The NG units lack discipline and a sense of the chain of command. It isn't as if this story hasn't been told before. Rumsfeld gave a good answer, but the story was simply portrayed in the msm as a gotcha on Rumsfeld, which seems to be what the reporter intended in the first place. If this story was so important the reporter would have already investigated and gotten the facts from the Pentagon. If I was the Chattanooga editor, this guy would be history immediately. He lacks ethics.

We're living in such an exciting time. I mean we've gone from journalism to creative writing to performance art in just a few short months.

This is actually old news, made "interesting" because supposedly soldiers are asking the question now. Soldiers went into Iraq with the old personal armor because Clinton stole the money appropriated to buy armor kits and used it to drive down the deficit. The contracts had just been re-let when 9/11 happened and the new armor was just starting to roll off the production lines when we went into Iraq.

The reporter's object was to embarrass Rumsfield for its news value and he succeeded. (However if Rummy doesn't want to field open questions from the men he shouldn't ask for them - he recovered fairly quickly fortunately.) Wonder how long that reporter's "embed" lasts now?

This question by the soldier would possibly have been legitimate, even if suggested by the reporter, if the soldier had actually ever BEEN IN IRAQ!!!!
This is a soldier who is deploying to Iraq for the first time, and is coached about asking this question. Yes, the troops appear to be getting transported to the front in trucks which have been retrofitted in the field. I notice that in reading Pitts' earlier columns, that the armor being applied was done with materials procured by the Army from kits sent over for the purpose. Scrounging of additional metal appears to also have been done, but the question makes it seem like the troops are doing this work with no help from the Army.

Anyway, does this soldier realize that the Humvees he will be using when he reaches is destination in Iraq WILL be armored? Because the fact is, 80% of the Humvees in Iraq have armor, and the other 20% are being used in non-threatened zones.

This soldier was taken for a dupe by Pitts.

So the soldiers aren't capable of deciding for themselves if they should ask the question suggested to them by the reporter? It's all the reporter's fault?

Excellent questions and the answer is 'no' to both. But you knew there'd be a 'but.'

One wonders how many soldiers the reporter went through before he found one who was willing to be his pawn. And, yes, I've been in such a situation with a reporter and said "no, I won't do it, sir," whatever 'it'was.

Hey y'all. You don't give the soldier credit. You act like he doesn't know the difference between right and wrong and that is quite insulting. You make it seem like the soldier was so stupid that he was "duped". This question was obviously on the minds of many of the soldiers in attendance. Did you hear the applause after the question, or do you think Pitts duped all of the other soliders into applauding?

After this meeting Rummy climed into his armored vehicle, flanked by other armored vehicles with air support above, and he was safely ushered away...

I think Malkin is a creep. I'm not sure what the big deal is. So the reporter coached him so that he could ask a question to rummy who doesn't like to answer questions or talk to reporters.

Ann coulter was on O'reilly last night calling the person reporter a creep too. What are those to witches collaborating to get their loony messages out now?

What's really all your beef's? Ann was also saying the soldiers are just complainers, that they always complain, yada yada yada. While there out dying she's bitching about them wanting better protection.

Don't forget about your "we support our troops" bumper stickers.

Ok, one dim troll is ok, two begs a response.

A. What was your reading comprehension score on your SAT, because obviously you don't interpret posts too well.

B. Who exactly does "your" and "y'all" reference?

C. What does your hatred of Malkin, who by the way says that the armor issue is legitimate and thinks the reporter's heart was "in the right place," have to do with your take on the issue? It seems like she sort of agrees with you.

Or Ann Coulter? What, you think everyone to the right of Dennis Kucinich all belongs to a secret club where we get a syllabus and marching orders on a particular issue?

The issue here is what constitutes journalism and reporting, not just the practical import of the question.

Read some of the nuanced comments above to understand the various "beefs" that examine the issue in more depth than your incoherent partisan ... horseshit.

Thank you.

Bill thanks for the label but I'm no troll (Anonymous Scientist). Since you implemented the sign in, I decided to change my name.

I can read quite well. There were comments made that suggest that this was all the work of the journalist, and not a valid question from a concerned soldier. Also, there were suggestions that the soldier was a pawn -- or incapable of making a rational decision to do the right thing. The journalist may have wanted to ask the question, but so did the soldier, and soo do many soldiers.

Samples from above:

* "he coached "his" soldiers in what to say"
* "There is a very large likelihood this Q would have never been asked if the NGman hadn't been coached"
* "One wonders how many soldiers the reporter went through before he found one who was willing to be his pawn"

On Scarborough Country Coulter suggested that soldiers complain all of the time about matters like these. What the hell does this woman know about soliders and what they say or do? She's clueless. I tend to believe that you don't agree with her dismissivness.

Ok, Anon/Left of Center -

I didn't respond with ammunition to your comment because it wasn't too bad, though the "Rummy protected" diatribe was a bit grating (he was a naval fighter pilot when he was active military, btw) so my apologies for the dim comment.

But the suggestion I can make that applies to you as well is - since there are more than two opinions about this issue, and there are only certain commenters expressing what you address, try and directly indicate who you are talking to. Or use a conditional, like "some."

As an e-mailer wisely suggested, this is an issue that will be morphed to fit a left-right ideology, which really shouldn't be. So I don't like boiling it down into a "support Bush/don't support Bush" issue.

As Malkin's post suggested, and others, you can think the question was legit or not on its own merits, yet disagree with the way the reporter manipulated its inclusion and failed to notify readers of his influence.

Truth be told, I'm sick of blowhards on the left and right boiling everything down to a predictable, partisan narrative.

Bill, I don't think it's appropriate to boil this down to a pro/anti Bush issue either. I'm on the side of the soldier - that's the bottom line. My brother is preparing for his second trip. Rummy's response really scared the crap out of me. It was very cold. I don't care if he speaks to the press like that, but not a group of soldiers who are going into a war.

Anon -

Read the post linked in the last update if you'd like a practical treatment of the armor issue that's separate from emotion.

Partisan? You have a "annoy a liberal" link up and conservative t-shirts "commies aren't cool".

I have a strong dislike for people who get on national tv and speak the way those two women do. Then have you link to one of the two crazies, felt it needed response. Ya'll was in reference to those who feel the "military guys" are complaining and have "we support our troops" bumper stickers.

Don't accuse me of partisanship, you've seen 3 comments from me while we have a whole blog of yours.

Partisan? You have a "annoy a liberal" link up and conservative t-shirts "commies aren't cool".

Those are third party advertisements, not the content of my blog. Though come to think of it - commies AREN'T cool. Instapundit has up "Blame Bush" gear, do you think he parrots or represents all the sentiments in his ads?

I have a strong dislike for people who get on national tv and speak the way those two women do. Then have you link to one of the two crazies, felt it needed response.

That's great. You seem to be associating this blog or the previous comments with those "loony witches," when Malkin made a perfectly reasonable point that sort of agreed with you.

Why don't you address the content of her assertion? Or the specific assertions above your comment?

As far as a whole blog, my critcisms strive to be contextual, often partisan, but based on my reasoning. In contrast:

Don't forget about your "we support our troops" bumper stickers.

Whose bumper stickers are those? And considering one of the commenters you probably don't like is in the military, what does this mean? And what does that have to do with my post? This is about media bias, not support of or degredation of the troops. If the reporter would have disclosed his role in the story, it wouldn't merit much comment.

If you are addressing people that are drawing a blanket conclusion about the whole situation or merit of the soldier's comment because they are pro-Bush, then address those people. Otherwise, your statements imply a much different conflict than the issue that this post and other commenters try to address: the appropriate role of a journalist.

To boil down Bill's excellant points, the issue is simply this: the reporter created news rather than ( or should that read "Rather Dan" ... ) reporting it.

That's the bottom line.