While Americans know Uncle Sam can't tell them everything about the war on terrorism, they have come to rely on the media to relay everything they need to know about events here and abroad.
However, those who carefully observe the national media may join ranks with some analysts who say the media have not been able to keep them informed.
Some critics, like Gil Halsted, a news reporter for Wisconsin Public Radio, argue that the media do not try hard enough to give the public specific information about the war.
\We're getting a lot of bombing and grainy photos and not information about what's happening on the ground,"" Halsted said. ""They're not asking tough enough questions about military strategy.""
Others, like Pulitzer Prize-winning Los Angeles Times media critic David Shaw, believe the media are doing the best job possible under the circumstances.
""[Journalists] are doing as good a job as the Pentagon is allowing them to'everyone's got a long line of people who want to go over there,"" he said. ""The Pentagon is not allowing people into places like Uzbekistan and with the special forces in Afghanistan and on the [aircraft carrier USS] Kitty Hawk. In the case of not letting us into Uzbekistan, they say the Uzbekistan government doesn't want to advertise that they're helping us. In the case of not letting us on the Kitty Hawk and with special opposition forces, they say it would jeopardize the security of the mission and the safety of the troops.""
But the media have not asked for more information, according to some critics.
""I don't really hear a lot of talk yet about journalists complaining that they haven't been given access,"" said UW-Madison journalism Professor Doug McLeod.
Strong public support of the military campaign influences the TV networks' tone, said UW-Madison journalism Professor James Baughman.
He said news producers are sensitive to public opinion polls like a Nov. 2-4 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll that found 86 percent of Americans approving of military action in Afghanistan, adding that many networks adjust their content to reflect viewer opinions.
""The drive for retaliation is so intense, and the news media is very mindful of it,"" Baughman said.
McLeod said the media try to ingratiate themselves with public opinion to stay with the ""in"" group, referring to the members of the public supporting U.S. military action.
They want to say ""we're not a threat to the 'in' group,"" he said, because ""the penalty would be losing their viewers.""
Analysts also raised concern that media have lost their objectivity in light of a conflict that hits so close to home.
McLeod said he is personally ""shocked by the lack of detachment on the part of some members of the media,"" especially CBS anchor Dan Rather, who called for bombing and harsh retaliation during his appearance on Letterman shortly after the attacks.
As a journalist, Rather's job is to ""remain detached and not get involved,"" McLeod said.
But UW-Madison journalism Professor Hemant Shah said reporters' objectivity is ""a total myth,"" because it is human nature to put one's values into one's work.
""There isn't a media system in the world that's objective. I prefer to think that media ought to strive for accuracy and fairness,"" he said.
Baughman said there are ""many things the news media could be doing that it's not"" in order to taint viewers' emotions, such as telling personal stories about family members lost in the World Trade Center.
""The [New York] Times is still running page-long obituaries,"" he said. ""If TV did that it would break your heart.""
Baughman and Shaw advised anyone who is worried about the quality of news coverage to actively seek out multiple sources of news.
""It's part of citizenship,"" Baughman said. ""I would admonish people on that score.""
""The nightly network news has never been the best source of news'it's 22 minutes,"" Shaw said. ""I don't think anybody who wants to be well informed is going to be well informed if all they do is watch 22 minutes of network news.\
