On the Strength of multiple Witnesses

This blurb from Reliable Sources touches on a subject discussed with WH Press Secretary Tony Snow last week and paints a picture of media-at-large starting (or at least trying) to play catch-up. From the CNN snippet:


KURTZ: Pam Hess, has the sending of 20,000 additional troops gotten a fair hearing in the media or has it gotten caught up in this wrenching, emotional debate about whether the war itself was a mistake?

PAM HESS: I think it's gotten caught up about it, and the debate about it is actually all wrong. What reporters know and what Martha says is that 20,000 really isn't that big -- isn't that big a jump. We're at 132,000 right now. It's going to put us even less that we had going in going across the line.

What we're not asking is actually the central question. We're getting distracted by the shiny political knife fight. What we need to be asking is, what happens if we lose? And no one will answer that question. If we lose, how are we going to mitigate the consequences of this?

It's so much easier for us to cover this as a political horse race. It's on the cover of "The New York Times" today, what this means for the '08 election. But we're not asking the central national security question, because it seems that if as a reporter you do ask the national security question, all of a sudden you're carrying Bush's water. There are national security questions at stake, and we're ignoring them and the country is getting screwed.

Instapundit's comments are pure snark, but given the overall performance of Big Media on the issue, can you really blame him?

Meanwhile, last week in a radio interview Tony Snow touched on this as well:

HH: Have you seen even one MSM’er of stature walk a war opponent through the consequences in a prolonged and serious fashion?

TS: No, but I think we have seen a number of them starting to ask questions. And I think, you know, you begin with baby steps, Hugh, and the first thing is important to start laying this out for people, because everybody says well, we’ve got to succeed in Iraq, and it’s vital to succeed, it’s vital to our future, but nobody explains why. The President started that last night, you and I get opportunities to do it, but I think what we’re on the verge of here, I think, is a pretty interesting public debate where people are going to look thoughtfully at the President’s proposal, and they’re also going to ask opponents okay, if you don’t like it, what do you have that’s better? And that is also a critical question that maybe in the past would not have been pushed as aggressively, but a combination of new media, old media, and really interested Americans, I think are going to compel everybody to put their cards on the table.

Jules Crittenden had a great line about it in his post yesterday. Like Instapundit's, if you're squeamish around snark, beware: Pamela Hess of UPI just pointed out the[sic] the Imperial media is naked.

Credit where credit is due; I'm glad to see at least selected members of Big Media waking up and trying to get in the game but is anyone going to have the guts to ask them why they've waited to engage this thoroughly 'til now?

Well, in another say-it-here, it-happens-there moment, follow the links for more questions and few answers.