Tommy

"It's Tommy this and Tommy that and “Tommy, how's your soul?”

But it's “Thin red line of heroes” when the drums begin to roll."

The poem "Tommy" by Rudyard Kipling has been oft mentioned of late, but that one off-hand comment, widely misunderstood, is one of the perfect analogues for our current situation in the media.

The "thin red line of heroes" phrase is blistering social commentary by Kipling, a fine reporter in his own right, on combat reportership of the day. During Kipling's time there were essentially two types of combat correspondents, those who were "regular" reporters sent to the area of the battle and off-duty (or occasionally on-duty) officers who wrote for various newspapers. This would be the equivalent of a Marine company commander in Afghanistan doing up a daily "weblog" and having it published by the Post. (Something I suspect the owners would kill for. "I have the honor to report that upon the sixth instance a company of Marines, under the command of Captain P--- lifted off from the Kandahar airport bound on a search for Mullah Mohammed Omar")

But it was the "regular" reporters, many of whom had never been outside of England for more than a holiday, for whom Kipling reserved his ire. Raised as he was in the East, he had an abiding love affair for, and understanding of, the Army that made survival on "the frontier" possible. And to read babbling by the utterly clueless (and often ham-handed) reporters sent out by the "major newspapers of their day" was infuriating. The "thin red line of heroes" line was a reference to an action that had seen many of those "thin red heroes" killed yet the report more or less glossed over that fact. The soldiers of Kipling's day were considered highly disposable, the English of the time still clove to the Wellington approach: "scum of the earth, enlisted for drink." There was not much that was lower than a soldier so who cares if the report is accurate?

The United States' opinion on soldiers, admittedly, has vacillated. But the present-day "major media" is almost one hundred percent the product of the Vietnam era "soldiers are baby-killers" mindset. Thus, we have reporting that makes "thin red line of heroes" look brilliant. Whether it is Christiane Amanpour, a woman who can find good things to say about Palestinian suicide bombers but practically smashes her teeth saying anything positive about American bomber pilots, or Geraldo Rivera, a guy who has about as much knowledge of military affairs as I do of Assyrian history (okay, less) or Ashleigh Banwhatever, a woman who can't identify the difference between a fighter and a bomber, the quality of reporting from the American media on the War on Terrorism has just been abysmal . Even the reporting from Time on the prison riot and "Blackhawk Down" get so many of the nuances (which are the heart of battle) wrong, it is just astonishing.

I know that Fox is trying. They sent at least three "crew" to Afghanistan that were former military (one Marine producer at least, IIRC.) And you can see Geraldo manfully struggling to get with the "new groove." But watching Mike Wallace trying to say anything good about Special Forces "babykillers" would be funny, if it wasn't so infuriating.

The British, on the other hand, perhaps because they know where the "thin red line of heroes" line comes from, have been pretty good. Frankly, I'd be in the dark were it not for the Times of London. They have some of the best, and most knowledgeable, combat correspondents and commentators around. And the BBC coverage of the war in Afghanistan was excellent, if a bit bleeding-heart. At least they got the facts right; it was only the commentary, overt and covert, that was obnoxious.

I'm not sure what can be done about it, but the US media tends to cycle. I suspect that there will be more "pro-military" journalists around in five or ten years than there are "anti-military", unless things go badly wrong. And simple ratings are going to force all the networks to get better reporting, analysis and commentary; the American public has been changing their channels so fast you can smell the smoke from the remotes. Training would help; reporters that wouldn't begin to cover a story on stray dogs without doing a little research seem to think that covering the military, which is a world more arcane and complex than neurosurgery, can be done without learning the difference between Mar-Cam and chocolate chip.

Hopefully they'll get a clue. Or a dime to buy one. Because we're going to have a lot of thin red lines out there. And it would be a shame to have to listen to this drivel for the next ten years.

("Thin BDU lines?" "Thin Mar-Cam lines?" "Thin chocolate-chip lines?" Whatever”)