Brit Hume has a fairly comprehensive critique of the media performance in the past couple wars.

I suppose that reading these quotes now is a little unfair, like shooting fish in a barrel. But I do so to illustrate the point that the majority of the American media who were in a position to comment upon the progress of the war in the early going, and even after that, got it wrong. They didn?t get it just a little wrong. They got it completely wrong...

...This level of imperviousness to reality is remarkable. It is consistent and it continues over time.

I think about this phenomenon a lot. I worry and wonder about the fact that so many people can get things so wrong, so badly, so often, so consistently and so repeatedly. And I think that there are ideas lurking under the surface that help to explain why this happens. In brief, when it comes to the exercise of American power in the world, particularly military power, there seems to be a suspicion among those in the media ? indeed, a suspicion bordering on a presumption ? of illegitimacy, incompetence and ineffectiveness.

Which of course begs the question--why should we think they're getting it right now?

I'd never given much thought to the difference between a skeptic and an cynic before reading this article beyond the meaning of the words. You'd think those that use words for a living would be more discerning.

I think Brit embodies, 'fair and balanced' although sometimes I wish he weren't and would call some of these jerks on their stupid remarks more often. He remains a gentleman.

In brief, when it comes to the exercise of 'journalism' in the world, particularly military 'journalism', there seems to be a suspicion among those watching the media ? indeed, a suspicion bordering on a presumption ? of illegitimacy, incompetence and ineffectiveness.

Hmmmm, works, doesn't it?