Good thinking about battlefield access and jamming their signals. It's cheap to do and there is not a thing they can do about it but squawk. al-Jezebel isn't the only one either; think Reuters etc. They are part of the enemy and it's time to treat them as such.

But what do we do about America's other de facto enemies like Reuters, BBC, and AFP? I think he's saying that our military has to have broadcast-ready stories and pictures before our enemies do. It's a battlefront in the new way of war.

I think lyle is right. America's de facto enemy, the free press, must be abolished.

We need some sort of organization responsible for fighting back against the tyranny of free society and open exchange of information. We could call it .. oh.. I don't know .. the National Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. Catchy, right? I know, I know, it's been used before. But, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. In fact, there's a great book we could use as a reference.

Chris Wage, the First Amendment doesn't apply in a foriegn combat zone. It should be U.S. military policy to exclude all press from the combat zone, and to jam all non-military signals transmitting from the combat zone. I said nothing about abolishing the free press - they would remain free to publish/broadcast whatever they wanted. Just not from the combat zone.

Al Jazeera is a special case. They are the enemy's propaganda ministry and AJ personnel in the combat zone should be targeted as enemy combatants.

How much time should pass before the muzzle is removed?

Semi, I have not suggested muzzling the press. I have simply said that they should not have access to the combat zone.

Let them write or broadcast whatever they want, completely unmuzzled. Just don't let them into the combat zone.

There is no "muzzling" of the press.

As for Al Jazeera, I wasn't thinking of muzzles either, but missiles.

Great idea. The government will tell us what happened and we'll have no option but to believe it, and no one will ask, "If you've got nothing to hide...?" The dominant trend I've noticed lately from the right is an increasingly hostile tenor and intensity of scapegoating. Time for some soul searching, kids.

Soul searching indeed. It needs to start in the so called fourth estate that gives more air time to our 'abuses' while token coverage only to the barbarism of our enemy. Typical that defenders of such irresponsible journalism forget the Jayson Blairs, Eason Jordans, the Daily Mirrors of the world get their comeuppance because they are patently untruthful.

Good post Drake.

Semi and Chris, as always, twist the argument or miss the point entirely. The free press is a wonderful thing...provided they are truthful. Chris and Semi make the oft-incorrect assumption that the "free press" is, indeed, telling the truth.

Once the "free press" stops telling the truth or reporting the facts without spin and distortion, then they cease to become the "press" and become propaganda machines.

Chris and Semi, take the blinders off and assume for one second that 75% (or even 50%) of what the AP, BBC, and Reuters (and I'm not eveing talking about Al Jazeera) report from the "battlefield" is incorrect, distorted, or even a flat out lie. Would you still agree that total and unfettered access to the "battlefield" using "Press" credentials is a good thing? I would hope not. Misinformation (and there has been tons of it from the "press" lately) is worse than no information at all.

Big Media's reputation is at an all time low right now among conservatives and independent thinkers. Only the left is still listening, and that's simply because they like the agenda-driven drivel they are hearing and so desperately WANT it to be true. For months, all we heard was the economy was terrible and there were no jobs. When that lie could no longer be sustained...crickets. At the beginning of the Iraq War, Sy Hirsh and crowd said we were losing to the tough Iraqis. When that lie could not be sustained (it took two weeks to blow that one)...crickets. Then it was the "PDB" for weeks, and how "Bush knew." Do we hear that now? No, because the media tried to advance lies and conspiracy theories that could not be sustained. I could go on and on.

Thank god we had a free and somewhat American press during WWII. Had the media been full of the "impartial, global citenzry" it's full of now, we would have packed it in after one year, which is what 90% of the "free press" wants us to do now.

I wish I could put one-third as much faith into the fourth estate that Chris and Semi do...then I myself might espouse the wonders of a noble and honorable "free press."

Too many people spend too much time agonizing over this subject. Why not just read a variety of print media and view a variety of visual media?

One of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard is, "I get all my news from Fox and and the Washington Times". I probably view and read these sources as much as anyone.

Freedom of the press means exactly that. We should have more expression of opinion, not less. And let the people make up their own minds. Don't imply that the public at large is too ignorant or incapable of knowing the difference.

p.s.-- I especially like to watch "HANNITY & colmes".

It is amazing---and appalling---the depths to which the far-left wing will sink in order to push their agenda.

Suddenly the same "freedom of the press" that they rail against in the name of political correctness and "action against hate crimes" is the most precious thing on Earth. Unrestricted propaganda access to the airwaves for al-Jazeera is a life and death matter for American freedoms, when every other day they're decrying the very existence of fundy Christian TV and denouncing the Washington Times.

"Hypocrisy" is too gentle a term for their actions. It borders on the "aiding and abetting" of treason; all the more so because its central focus is on attacking President Bush, not righting any alleged wrongs.

They'll be the first to collect a bullet in the back of the head, or a sword to the neck, in an Islamist-run world. But they're far more concerned with short-term partisan politics than with the fate of individual freedom.