“De Waal also was quite critical of the International Criminal Court's issuance of an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. Nothing good will come of it.”

This begs the question: Does Mr. De Waal think there should be an ICC? If his position was that the ICC should not have issued an arrest warrant for someone accused of genocide, what action should the international community have taken?

I can understand his pessimism, likely rooted in a long history of impotence on the part of international institutions when dealing with security crises; however, the ICC took appropriate action within its purview. If the opportunity presents itself, al-Bashir could be legally apprehended. There is precedence.

In light of the well-documented evidence, failure of the ICC to take a stand against genocide would have been an unpardonable sin…regardless of the likely outcome.

I really enjoyed your thoughts on the media. I'm not sure, however, if there are any suggestions one could offer as to fixing its tendency to report only bad news. It seems that the mass media are only interested in utilizing the rhetoric of moral outrage. In fact, the media just seems to be a rhetorical carnival of moral outrage most of the time. There is obviously nothing morally outrageous about good news or success (unless of course it involves some sort of convenient narrative of overcoming something moral outrageous). The media's function is to decide what counts as information, but such decisions must be translated into a simplified story in order for the information to be well-received. Good news bores us in the complexity of its positive implications. Bad news, on the other hand, allow us to feel hope or fear and thus opine about, which is all very comforting. I'm not sure if the mass media system could function in any other way; it is just way too efficient. There is also always very good reporting though, like your own, but it is certainly rarer. Maybe that's the only way things could be with respect to the media. I'm not sure. Just some thoughts.

For several years the Army has been holding media panels for the students of the Command and General Staff College. Writing about that experience in Military and the Media - CGSC, one of those students stated:

The most beneficial block of instruction thus far at the Command and General Staff College was the importance of effective relations between the U.S. Military and the Media. Media relations must be considered a combat multiplier by U.S. Military commanders.

Mr. Ricks' short, declarative statement - "I think he is right" (referring to Darfur expert De Waal)- came as quite a shock to me. Not specifically because he wrote it, but that any journalist would.

I say that because the question of covering only the negative stories inevitably comes up. The responses vary, but typically run along the lines of: "If it bleeds, it leads" or "We can't cover every plane that lands safely."

To the best of my recollection, none have ever stated or even implied that it might make a difference; that they could do better.

And the choice of coverage could make a difference in this current global conflict, often referred to as a "War of Ideas."

Consider that a story about an airplane crash does not inspire other planes to follow suit. However, an over-emphasis of ambushes, IED attacks and suicide bombers can embolden insurgents. Likewise, the failure to cover restoration of utilities, school openings, improved security and other local success stories presents an unbalanced view of the overall picture. Such unbalanced coverage could suppress business investment and deter non-governmental organizations from offering more assistance.

The unbalanced coverage serves a more insidious purpose - it undermines our national will. Only a small percentage of our population now serves in the military. The percentage of those knowing someone that serves is not much larger. They rely on the press - that institution empowered under our First Amendment - for what they know of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Quite frequently I hear returning veterans complain that the press is getting it wrong and that the coverage presented is too negative.

Mr. Ricks, my only suggestion on how the "the media might do better" would be to ask the question: "Would this help or hurt the nation's efforts?"

Ask that question when deciding what to cover, and how to cover it. Ask that question prior to rushing to print some expose, obtained from a classified source, that reveals a successful tactic.

I know the media's role is not to be cheerleader for government policies. My only hope is that they assertfully realize we are all on the same side.

If you want a suggestion for how the media could do better you'd have to start by not having them owned by the likes of GE, Murdock, etc.

But seriously...

People in the Obama administration like to tout how much worse things would have been if the original $350bil hadn't been spent. If it is not true that what has been done so far has been helpful, the media have a responsibility to report and explain that. If it is true, they need to do a better job of explaining how what has already been done has already averted a bigger disaster. If that is in fact true, and if the Obama admin aren't adequately explaining it, then that would seem to be a prime example of a 'good news' story the media could tell.