Journalism
I am currently reading 'My Trade' by Andrew Marr (Sp?). It details the rise of journalism from Victorian days to the present. I have just finished the chapter on 'What is News'. Interesting stuff as he states quite clearly
'People often confuse the News with fact. Hard News is defined as that which will get an instantaneous reaction and may even change our way of life. The death of Diana and the Twin Towers are prime examples of Hard News. Then there is Soft News, stuff you fill the pages with because you have to. The repeated claims of WMD in Iraq by variour politicians over a period of months is an example of Soft News. However, what people fail to comprehend is that the story is far more important than the detail or, indeed, the actual fact. The headline you choose has to compete with everything else on that Supermarket shelf. Therefore the objective is to capture the passer by and then reward them with a story that justifies that expense. If you stuck to plain facts and reported all things accurately, you would not sell any papers'.
You may not agree, you may even hate him but he does highlight the fact that Newspapers are actually only a business whose aim is to make money.
In the case of this Major, he has vented his spleen in an e-mail. It has been leaked and the press have jumped on it, embellished it and made it into a very big issue. It sells papers. As has been said, the story now is about killer dogs and will stay that way until something else crops up that can be 'spun' into an eye catching headline.
In fairness to the BBC, they interviewed the head of the Army and quickly moved on from the Majors e-mail to the broader issues of Casualty figures, lack of resources, overstretch etc etc. It was the General, not the interviewer, who failed to get the right message across.
And the Generals talk of possible disciplinary action against the Major further shows his unsuitability to hold his present office. IMHO of course.