In a previous AT article we noted how the elite media often portray the military in a negative light —— composed of misfits who join the all—volunteer army because they lack, among other things, the option of a college education or gainful employment.

This perception inevitably leads journalists to be at best skeptical of military operations or at worst, dismissive, pessimistic and hostile. Journalist Robert Kaplan has an exemplary article in this month's Atlantic which takes his fellow journalists to task for being elitist snobs who are remiss in not examining their own bias against soldiers. Kaplan traces this bias to the distinct "cultural and economic layers" which they occupy. He depicts your average military man as someone who appreciates straight talk, is highly patriotic, tends to be religious, and selflessly  goes about life with a pragmatic can—do attitude. These attitudes, Kaplan notes, help explain why many in the military favor Bush over Kerry in the next election.
 
In contrast, journalists respect sophistication (pseudo or not), internationalism, skepticism regarding religious values, and tend to be egotistical. They often feel a greater kinship with foreign journalists than with fellow Americans serving in the military.
 
 Kaplan goes on to state that this bias impacts reporting and though journalists assume "the mantle of professional objectivity" this is often a cover which they hide behind. Kaplan goes on to praise "embedded reporters" who are often accused by media critics as selling themselves to the military. Kaplan strenuously disagrees and concludes that this embedding "might be their last, best chance to reconnect with much of the society they claim to be part of."

Ed Lasky  10 13 04