The sorriest thing about this is, most of the journalists I've seen comment (at Romenesko and in other articles and sites) seem to fall about 85%-15% that it was acceptable because the story needed to be told, he found a way around the problem of access, etc. ad nauseum.

There seem to be a very few journalists who actually read the entire email, in full, and digested the situation for what it was: a clear violation of SPJ's Ethics Code. Surprisingly, the Village Voice's media blog said (intimated - take your pick) he had done so.

It seems that some pigs really are more equal than others, when you get down to brass tacks and having to follow your own industry's ethical code (when it suits you).

The irony here is that Pitts' editor was part of Raegan's communication team. He should know better, but is pulling a CBS/Rather here and backing down slowly, if not completely.

So we should attack the soldier who asked the question and the journalist who couldn't get the question asked otherwise, but ignore the question and Rumsfeld's response.

Al,

No one ignored the question, including Rumsfeld, and I never attacked the soldier. If you weren't paying attention, Rumsfeld answered it, and has been pilloried in the press for it.

And yes, if you value any sort of standards in the mainstream media, you should be attacking the journalist in question. He violated the ethical code of his profession, quite simply.

If you want to excuse him for that, go ahead. But don't complain when your wife ends up sleeping with her ob/gyn, either. He just couldn't be bothered by ethics, either.

Well, we have a problem here. Rumsfeld said that we're making armor as fast as we can. The company producing it says "we have spare capacity, the Pentagon just needs to give the go-ahead". These two statements are mutually exclusive, so somebody's lying.

By the way, Bill, you seem awfully quiet about your "terror-fighting" apartment-bombing buddy Vlad now that he's trying to kill democracy in the Ukraine....

Rumsfeld is no doubt working hard to expose the incompetent individual who failed to tell him that Armor Holdings has excess capacity.

If you were paying attention you would realize that Armor Holdings isn't the only factor. They can produce armor faster - but they don't build the Humvees that the armor goes on. They have to wait for the Humvees to be built and sent to them to be armored.

By the way, this post was not about the armor issue, it was about the ethics of the reporter, period. The Left doesn't want to focus on the ethics of the reporter because, to the Left, the ends justifies the means.

But the fact is the reporter could have gotten his question answered without resorting to staging a news event and crossing the ethical line. He could have submitted his question to the Pentagon, to the commanders of the 287th, etc. He chose to do what he did - plant the question for a soldier to ask Rumsfeld, solely because it would create a big news event.

He should be fired. If I was his editor or publisher he'd be fired immediately

This whole situation is another example of majoring in minors. EVERY job can be done better... to a more precise degree... to 99.9999% perfection. This is the distinction between efficiency and effectiveness.

I get a whole hell of a lot more done by using the 80/20 rule... where you get 80% of the results for the first 20% of effort. In reality this rule is more like 90/10 and I focus on the 10% of effort on the 10 most important jobs to get an effective 900% return on the work invested. This is common sense.

Can anyone look at any one of my jobs and say I didn't finish that last 10%? Of course. But that doesn't mean I have not invested my time, energy, effort and resources in the best way possible to get the job done.

As non PC as it is to say... the welfare of the troops is secondary to the accomplishment of this mission. If we miss the January deadline it will embolden the enemy and harm the overall effort immeasurably... meaning more deaths and placing the entire mission in jeopardy. Rumsfield was right... you do go to war with the army you have... and the investment in armor kits for these vehicles was substantial... and in line with the common sense of trying to get this overall job done.

The fact that some of these vehicles are not armored or that they are improvising armor in the field is secondary to accomplishment of the mission... as is the welfare of these individual soldiers.

'dem is the hard facts with which the ignorant public can't seem to deal.

The way Rumsfeld's comments have been reported appears to have accomplished two things: Raising the question about armored vehicles and smearing Rumsfeld. When you read the full text of his response vs. what was reported it becomes apparent that they only chose the most damaging section.

Rumfeld's full comments

Imagine if they had reported that Rumsfeld
stated the part about taking Humvees from
Washington D.C. to get them to the soldiers in the field.

There is a nice article over at Donald Sensing's blog (which you can find by clicking on it from Bill's list of blogs) that explains who has capacity and who doesn't and why it's taking so long to get more.

"But the fact is the reporter could have gotten his question answered without resorting to staging a news event and crossing the ethical line."
You are grossly overstating what Pitts did. He didn't "stage a news event," he arranged to have a question asked to the Defense Secretary.

Jimmy--You sure talk tough with other people's lives, but there is a problem with the point you make. The Bush administration came into office with the intention of invading Iraq. They had two years to prepare for it and now almost two years have passed since they started it. They prepared for a cakewalk. They ignored those who said that toppling Saddam would lead to a long and costly occupation. They seemingly have no knowledge of the history of western occupations of Islamic countries. Rumsfeld pretended for months that the US was not involved in a guerilla war. American and Iraqi lives are being sacrificed at the alter of Don Rumsfeld's arrogant stupidity. Right wing Republicans have been in hysterics for the last couple of days because a nobody reporter and a couple of nobody soldiers managed to expose his incompetence to the teeniest bit of sunlight. Thank God.

PS--Mr. Hobbs, those of us who reside in Tennessee refer to it as the 278th.

Clark,

Again, you change the topic to suit your needs. The reporter broke the very bedrock rule that maintains his profession - and his professionalism.

As Bill wrote, he should be fired immediately for that transgression.

You continue to willfully ignore that most germane point of this discussion. Not all of us are willing to do so. The guy broke the rules, plain and simple, and should be out of a job. The only reason he isn't is because his superiors have no spine, and the industry he works in is also in wholesale decline, financially and morally. I'll leave aside what that says about their politics or personal beliefs, for the sake of Bill's bandwidth.

Pitts sold himself out and he is unfortunately, at this point, not going to be held to the account of his profession. Which says a lot about his profession and its purveyors. Refer to the above about the journalism industry.

This whole thing is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of the press we have today. Thankfully so.

Under Clark's scenario, my dad wouldn't have been eating pineapple which expired during WWII when he was in Germany from 56-58.

Because we knew we were going to be there and they had ample time to prepare said rations.

Clark said:

"The Bush administration came into office with the intention of invading Iraq"

I do not believe you can support that assertion.

... that was me.

Since the IEDs that are being used against our troops are improvised explosives that result in mostly low velocity schratnel I wonder if they've considered using kevlar or if it would even make sense.

It seems like something that would allow us to very quickly scale up production plus the weight and adaptability to various vehicles seems desireable.

Just a thought.

Why should the reporter's ethics be questioned. The soldier's sentiment was shared by his fellow soldiers and can be found in many news articles. The shortage has been well documented. To question the reporter's ethics is to divert attention from the real issue: safety of our men and women in Iraq.

Why should the reporter's ethics be questioned. The soldier's sentiment was shared by his fellow soldiers and can be found in many news articles. The shortage has been well documented. To question the reporter's ethics is to divert attention from the real issue: safety of our men and women in Iraq.

more here: www.politicalthought.net