LTG (Ret) Ricardo S. Sanchez Address, Washington
Monday, 15 October 2007, 10:46 am

Press Release: US State Department

LTG (Ret) Ricardo S. Sanchez

Military Reporters And Editors Address Washington D.C.

12 October 2007

Transcript: LTG (Ret) Ricardo S. Sanchez Military Reporters And Editors Address, Washington D.C.

Some of you may not believe this but I am glad to be here. When Sig asked me if I would consider addressing you there was no doubt that I should come into the lion’s den. This was important because I have firmly believed since desert shield that it is necessary for the strength of our democracy that the military and the press corps maintain a strong, mutually respectful and enabling relationship. This continues to be problematic for our country, especially during times of war. One of the greatest military correspondents of our time, Joe Galloway, made me a believer when he joined the 24th Infantry Division during Desert Storm.

Today, I will attempt to do two things - first I will give you my assessment of the military and press relationship and then I will provide you some thoughts on the current state of our war effort.

As all of you know I have a wide range of relationships and experiences with our nation’s military writers and editors. There are some in your ranks who I consider to be the epitome of journalistic professionalism - Joe Galloway, Thom shaker, Sig Christensen, and John Burns immediately come to mind. They exemplify what America should demand of our journalists - tough reporting that relies upon integrity, objectivity and fairness to give accurate and thorough accounts that strengthen our freedom of the press and in turn our democracy. On the other hand, unfortunately, I have issued ultimatums to some of you for unscrupulous reporting that was solely focused on supporting your agenda and preconceived notions of what our military had done. I also refused to talk to the European stars and stripes for the last two years of my command in Germany for their extreme bias and single minded focus on Abu Ghraib.

Let me review some of the descriptive phrases that have been used by some of you that have made my personal interfaces with the press corps difficult:

- “dictatorial and somewhat dense”,

- “not a strategic thought”,

- Liar,

- “does not get it” and

- “The most inexperienced LTG.”

In some cases I have never even met you, yet you feel qualified to make character judgments that are communicated to the world. My experience is not unique and we can find other examples such as the treatment of secretary brown during Katrina. This is the worst display of journalism imaginable by those of us that are bound by a strict value system of selfless service, honor and integrity.

Almost invariably, my perception is that the sensationalistic value of these assessments is what provided the edge that you seek for self aggrandizement or to advance your individual quest for getting on the front page with your stories! As I understand it, your measure of worth is how many front page stories you have written and unfortunately some of you will compromise your integrity and display questionable ethics as you seek to keep America informed.

This is much like the intelligence analysts whose effectiveness was measured by the number of intelligence reports he produced. For some, it seems that as long as you get a front page story there is little or no regard for the “collateral damage” you will cause. Personal reputations have no value and you report with total impunity and are rarely held accountable for unethical conduct.

Given the near instantaneous ability to report actions on the ground, the responsibility to accurately and truthfully report takes on an unprecedented importance. The speculative and often uninformed initial reporting that characterizes our media appears to be rapidly becoming the standard of the industry. An Arab proverb states - “four things come not back: the spoken word, the spent arrow, the past, the neglected opportunity.” Once reported, your assessments become conventional wisdom and nearly impossible to change.

Other major challenges are your willingness to be manipulated by “high level officials” who leak stories and by lawyers who use hyperbole to strengthen their arguments. Your unwillingness to accurately and prominently correct your mistakes and your agenda driven biases contribute to this corrosive environment. All of these challenges combined create a media environment that does a tremendous disservice to America.

Over the course of this war tactically insignificant events have become strategic defeats for America because of the tremendous power and impact of the media and by extension you the journalist. In many cases the media has unjustly destroyed the individual reputations and careers of those involved. We realize that because of the near real time reporting environment that you face it is difficult to report accurately. In my business one of our fundamental truths is that “the first report is always wrong.” Unfortunately, in your business “the first report” gives Americans who rely on the snippets of CNN, if you will, their “truths” and perspectives on an issue.

As a corollary to this deadline driven need to publish “initial impressions or observations” versus objective facts there is an additional challenge for us who are the subject of your reporting. When you assume that you are correct and on the moral high ground on a story because we have not respond to questions you provided is the ultimate arrogance and distortion of ethics.

One of your highly respected fellow journalists once told me that there are some amongst you who “feed from a pig’s trough.” if that is who I am dealing with then I will never respond otherwise we will both get dirty and the pig will love it. This does not mean that your story is accurate.

I do not believe that this is what our forefathers intended. The code of ethics for the Society of Professional Journalists states:

…public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility.

The basic ethics of a journalist that calls for:

1. Seeking truth,

2. Providing fair and comprehensive account of events and issues

3. Thoroughness and honesty

All are victims of the massive agenda driven competition for economic or political supremacy. The death knell of your ethics has been enabled by your parent organizations who have chosen to align themselves with political agendas. What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our service members who are at war.


http://sweetness-light.com/archive/gen-sanchez-blasts-media-bias-transcript

What a message.  Far too often reporters become a part of the story and focus (emphasize) facts that support a political agenda.  To be honest, I do not trust any of them.... and haven't for quite some time.  The reasons they do this are obvious.... but harmful none-the-less.

Thanks.

-- Modified on 10/19/2007 10:57:28 PM

if you guys would STFU & learn to take orders!!  You could still be killing Viet Cong if you'd paid attention to your liders!!

Right on Super Dude! I could not have said it any better.

Nah, been there done that. I like it now with all those Vietnamese Girls working in the Massage Parlor. They are so pretty and have the tightest little pussies, Yum.

them's yer murtha-crats......

to you and to me when we post something that either Jack0 or others of a similar ilk... is more their dissatisfaction that first - others disagree with them. and second - that others can find evidence to support their differening opinion.

just a thought.

sadly, jack0 sometimes talks out of a couple of his many necks....sometimes it's funny....



-- Modified on 10/20/2007 2:18:50 PM

applies to issues of fact.   Issues of law may be resolved on the submitted facts.

What am I saying?!  You're so fucking high, you don't realize ANYTHING.

BTW, It's spelled "Cunt-tree"Lawyer

-- Modified on 10/20/2007 2:23:36 PM

the dummyrat playbook says marine corp officers are liars if they don't say the right things....

if you'd RTFM you'd know...

it must be right.

You fucking idiot, Murtha and North and Webb and myself and plenty of my friends were all USMC officers.  We all agree on one thing, that that is that BK needs to STFU until he RTFM!

Why do some conservatives feel the need to blast any lib with an agenda reporting, but never seem to mention that the conservative press just gives a free pass on everything?  Which is worse?  I don't know, but you sound like an idiot when all you do is say that the libs are advancing an agenda.  Conservatives have an agenda too, to not investigate anything, and attack the libs who do.

Neither side is any better.  The media is awful and terribly biased, but sitting quietly and just endorsing whatever the White House tells you to isn't reporting either.

we don't do balanced viewpoints here



-- Modified on 10/20/2007 5:00:34 PM

that makes people foam at the mouth, and causes immediate long term hypocrisy.

Mod 1:  it's not just conservatism that does this.  It's running with the crowd instead of thinking for yourself.

Now don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with getting along, and everybody is influenced by others in some ways and degrees.  

But when it's kneejerk follow the crowd, it gets weird.  And the problem we have these days is that "conservative" has become a popular term for "crazy as a fucking loon", or "I can spout crazier shit than you".  People have forgotten that conservative really means "careful".  In English, I mean.



-- Modified on 10/20/2007 5:13:21 PM

to balance your usual um, stuff.

So let's see... let's distill this down to a single paragraph:

"You press people aren't playing fair, WAHHHH. I'm an important general, respectable, smart, and.. respected. WAHH. Because I say so, and I have all of this paper to back me up. WAHHH."

PuhhhLEEESE.

The guy is a crony, he boot licked his way up, and he never deserved to have the freaking stars he got. Sure, he is smart, resourceful, and certainly capable of tactical troop command. He might not have made it had he not been. But he started his boot licking early when he wedged his way up into a staff position, and then commenced serious politico in order to get his stars.

He never should have gone beyond Colonel. He would have made a great field officer lifer. He poisoned himself with ambition.

Oh and, FYI, whenever someone like this says "Partisan politics" that means "I hate the fact that the GOP cant just do what it wants"

and they really don't give a shit either way.  The problem is not Sanchez' skill, it's that we've got an executive dept that doesn't like democracy, and is doing what they can to kill it.

There's slop in any work, and nobody would care what any reporter said if the facts coming back from Iraq were good.  

But the problem is becoming increasingly obvious:  there was no "mission accomplished", that anybody who ever heard of Vietnam knew it the day they crossed the LOD, and that whining about details doesn't change the fact that Bush fucked up, and THAT is what is killing troops.

They're just hoping somebody will believe that reporters making typos are the real reason we're stuck there in a quagmire, to quote Cheney.