Westy!
How the devil are you old boy? Long time, no speak.
Please don't get me wrong, I don't pretend that the media is perfect, my only serious contention is that it would be so easy to get press coverage that was more accurate, more reliable, and more helpful.
Re 'sniping at US policy' I don't think I have done on this thread - I was being rather UK-centric in my criticisms of how the government/MoD/Press relationship has been working in this conflict - and in fact think that the USA has done a rather better job with its media management than we have. Certainly I think that serious/specialised US media coverage has been pretty good.
Ref Israel and the Middle East: I didn't drag that one in, I was responding to a throwaway remark about media lies concerning the IDF. Vietnam, too, I'm afraid.
The media may have done you few favours in 'Nam (but then you managed it poorly, and did a poor job of getting it 'on side' - whereas you've done much better on the media hearts and minds since) but are you really blaming the press for Vietnam?
And I'll bet that as the NVA tanks and VC fighters converged on Saigon following the final humiliating and tragic US withdrawal (I took no pleasure in it then , nor do I now) I can just imagine two of their generals bemoaning the fact that:
"It's a shame we were defeated in the field, comrade."
"Yes, we never really recovered from the failure of the Tet offensive!"
There's certainly an argument that had they been left to 'get on with the job', the US military could have won in Vietnam, but to claim that US defeat is either due to, or an invention of, the media seems a tad bizarre, in my humble opinion.