Balance in war coverage

Around this time of the year, nothing seems to be more pervasive a catch phrase than "March Madness." However, our political climate has created an even more memorable expression via CBS' Dan Rather: "When news breaks out, we'll break in."\nThat's precisely what the media has accomplished throughout this war. They have broken into every channel, radio station and publication in distribution with up-to-the-minute war progress. Rivaling even the massive coverage from Desert Storm, today's news corporations have begun to provide an amazing service, extensive information and insight into what in the past could only be imagined for those back home.\nWe feel that praise should be given for their efforts, as gone are the days of the nameless soldier dying on the battlefield. Today, every casualty, machine malfunction or small event is covered with personality profiles, expert opinions and somber homage. A great service is being provided for anxious or grieving families back in the States.\nYet, there seems to be the sensation that the media is treading on slippery ground. Everyone appears to have their own correspondent "embedded" somewhere or reporting from outside the conflict. For the major sources of news, this is to be expected, but it verges on over-coverage when anyone is able to comment from overseas. In Chicago, the country radio station 99.5 had its own reporter in Kuwait, and when spoken to last Friday by the morning DJs, such in-depth questions were asked as, "So how's the food?"\nCertainly this isn't the case for all news sources, but we should question whether or not the coverage of the war found on our major stations and newspapers is adequate, or if we truly need the diversified coverage that a video jockey would bring to the 101st Division. \nFurthermore, one has to wonder exactly how often Dan Rather needs to "break in" and keep us informed. There is definitely no doubt that major breakthroughs are desired to be seen by the public, whether there are tournament games on TV or not, but an update on how a certain battalion has moved five miles closer to Baghdad might not be a breaking story. CNN.com does a great service in providing up-to-date information, but how does such a flood of knowledge affect viewers? We have access to 3-D diagrams of every weapon used by both sides in the conflict, from the GBU laser-guided bombs to the Al-Hussein ballistic missile. The war then verges on a sensational program, one where collectors struggle to get all of the stats, and less of a harsh reality.\nWe praise the media for their intrepid work and are thankful for the service they provide, but simply offer that perhaps we should evaluate the extent to which complete coverage is necessary, and where, if at all, we may be in danger of overexposing the event.\n-- JP Benitez for the Editorial Board\n