During a bungled night-time raid in Afghanistan, NATO troops killed two pregnant ladies, dug the bullets out of their bodies, poured alcohol on the wounds then claimed that Afgan militants had bound and murdered them before NATO ever got there.

Our enemy is so very inhuman.

Oh wait, that inhuman shit was done by us.  And that makes us what?  Misunderstood?  Mistakes happen?  Couple of bad apples? Something like that.

Just as we’re very quick to believe in the inhumanity of our enemies and attack them, we’re very quick to believe in the heroism of our troops and defend them.

Rather than doing either, rather than taking sides, we should just look at war and call it what it is:  The very stupidest atrocity that humans can perform.  The dumbest, most pointless and dangerous activity of all.  No heroes.  No great men storming a beach for our freedom.  Just one senseless blood-letting after another.

War is an awful, stupid and reckless thing.  It is, as my Nan once said: “A race to very bottom.”  That humans glorify it astounds and baffle me.  It’s as if we’re all part of some insane cult that worships the bubonic plague.

Insofar as that story about the Afgan ladies has a hero, it would be the reporter, Jerome Starkey, who took the time to do some actual reporting and discovered NATO’s lie.  That’s how bad a state we’re in.  These days, simply doing your job looks exceptional.  In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Even more interesting than the story about the women is the one he wrote about the state of reporting in Afganistan.  From the summary:

Now, in a blistering indictment of both NATO and his own profession, Starkey writes for Nieman Watchdog that the international forces led by U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal are rarely called to account because most reporters are too dependent on access, security and the ‘embed culture’ to venture out and see what’s happening for themselves.

It’s an article I find immensely believable because it lines up so well with my experience of blogging, publicists and event coverage.  Although greatly and obviously magnified by the warzone, the principles are the same ones that I’ve seen working in even the most trivial of subjects.  As above, so below.

To have a successful blog, you need access to the events, people and things you want to write about.  To get and retain access you must avoid pissing off the people who control it.  To avoid pissing them off, you better tow their line, do them favours and bend the truth to suit their interests.

It’s a problem that the internet has made worse.

You will not often hear me arguing in favour of monopolized media very often.  I only do so tentatively now and with an understanding of how it is also subject to the vilest corruption.  But, for a moment, bear with me.  That the old media is corrupt does not mean that the new one is innocent.  There are benefits and costs.

In defence of our old and dying monopolized model, the less news sources a place has, the more power those news sources will have.  PR people  have to deal with the media on its terms because they are the only show in town.

Because the internet has opened up media to so many people, all those people have much less power.  This allows the PR departments to pick and choose who they grant access to.  The PR departments, quite obviously, pick those they either can’t ignore and/or those they can easily control.

Because a blog’s success is often a function of its access (who would you rather read – the site with the interview or the one from the back row?) this starts a game of favours. If you don’t play, there’s a bunch more, just like you who will.

Because the people who run and/or write the blogs are often amateurs with a vested interest in the subject they’re covering, this starts a culture of embedding.

Imagine that you want to be a fashion designer.  You start a blog about fashion to help you on your path.  Now, are you really going to deal honestly with the people who can wreck your dreams?   The people who control the runways and the shows; the people who have the influence you need?  Of course not.

You can be replaced.  Step out of line and you will be.

As blogging has become more successful it has become less useful.  Instead of it just being regular people writing their thoughts about whatever subject interests them, it has become a game of influence peddling, hidden advertising and invites.

Not just in fashion, of course, but everywhere.  Politics, arts, science and tech.

When bloggers stopped paying to attend events or buy the products they’re reviewing, they stopped being free citizens.  Without even a rudimentary code of ethics to guide their behaviour, they became a bunch of schills.  A bunch of pig-dog, capitalist lackeys.  There are exceptions, of course, but, this is my overall experience of the field.  There is a power imbalance and it is being manipulated.

Strangely, this may swing the power back to people who are honest.  As their opinions becomes rare, their value goes up.  It’s simple supply and demand.

We’ll have to wait and see on that one though.

I’m not even trying to play myself off as being above any of this shit.    But –and this might be a conceit–  I like to think that when I’ve been influenced or there has been a conflict, I’ve been open and frank about it.  That I’ve disclosed.

When I’ve been less than forthcoming, it’s always about personal shit rather than any thought of professional advancement or blogging success.  I reserve the right to a private life and try to respect that in others.

Whether in war or reviews, for papers or blogs, the problem remains the same.  So does the solution.  You might not be able to believe everything you read but you should be able to believe everything you write.

Is that too much to ask?

I probably don’t even want to know the answer.