COL M - Are you sure you didn't mean "pine" pollen? I've seen the same thing around here. Seems to get worse every time they break out the tin foil hats and six packs. My opinions:
1. The media is hindering the war on terrorism. Personally I think they're "aiding and abetting". They are most definitely not helping combat the Islamists. I doubt it's a "policy"; it's most likely a side-effect of ego, greed and stupidity. Who was it that said "don't blame conspiracy when stupidity will serve?" (Horrible paraphrase - I'll have to research the quote, it's a fundamental truth/observation of human nature and worth knowing.)
2. The article Sigi links is worth the read. It also lends weight to my argument in #1 above.
3. The objective of all conflict is to force the "enemy" population to capitulate. This is accomplished by breaking its will. Sun Tzu, Clausowitz, Mao, "pick your favorite", everybody understands the importance of psyop against the opponent population. The media is the critical component in the assault on the will of the non-Islamic (world) populace. It's the force multiplier that magnifies the effects of the most insignificant act into a groundswell of public sentiment that influences decision makers. Examples pro and con include the "yellow journalism"" of the Spanish American War and the drumbeat of negative reporting from Somalia (thought I was going for the RVN example didn't you). The sophistication of the target population (COL M's comments) dictates the method and predicts the efficacy.
4. Another mangled quote - "If you're not for us, you're agin us!" Our own UW doctrine lists phase one as "creating the climate" for resistance. The communists have always had a more pragmatic view of what that really means but everybody agrees it includes psyop against the target population. By their choices of reportage and the bias present in it, the media has shown itself to be the willing dupes of the Islamists. The terrorists have an active program of influencing the media - they ensure that every atrocity gets adequate coverage. When we screw up (Abu Graib) they ride the wave, working to destroy our credibility. The Islamists have actively incorporated the media into their campaign plan - and they don't even have to expend resources on it.
5. The media are prostitutes. They will publish anything. Look at reportage out of Iraq between D1 and D2. They were Sadam's uncritical mouthpieces, trumpeting his propaganda (which was crafted to influence primarily the Europeans and leftist Americans), all in the name of preserving access. Similar examples can be found throughout the world over the last 50 years. Back to arqument #1.
BTW - I use Islamist and terrorist interchangeably. That's actually pretty sloppy of me. We should be concentrating on the big picture - the Islamists. The terrorists are just the overt visible, military/paramilitary component. By not accepting that this is a war of cultures and focusing only on the terrorism, the media furthers the Islamist cause.
Enough rambling (ranting) - Time to let somebody else stir the pot.
Peregrino