PressEthic

It's a PR nightmare for the White House. The Pentagon asked journalists to not treat the 2,000th death in the war in Iraq as a milestone; the journalists didn't listen.

As E&P reports, U.S. Army Lt. Col. Steve Boylan e-mailed the same sentiments to reporters:

"The 2,000th Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine that is killed in action is just as important as the first that died and will be just as important as the last to die in this war against terrorism and to ensure freedom for a people who have not known freedom in over two generations."

Boylan's right. But for the sake of argument, let's assume coverage on the 2,000 mark - especially The New York Times photo spread of the dead soldiers - was intended to show the importance of all those killed.

After all, someone has to.

Did the president hold a moment of silence for the 843rd soldier killed? Has he been to a soldier's funeral yet?

Boylan's e-mail also mentioned "specific agendas and ulterior motives." Wednesday's coverage had political implications, because as much as the war is debated it's impossible for it not to. But what else could newspapers have done?

Ignore it and the soldiers are meaningless, which certainly is not true. Avoid writing about the 2,000th soldier (as to not make him more important than those who preceded him) and that soldier is less important. List the names only and they are just combinations of letters - no families, no dreams, no lives.

The New York Times, The Washington Post and every other paper that covered this "milestone" did the right thing. Journalists can't leave these soldiers' stories untold.

For the Pentagon to make the request at all shows that someone has a specific agenda and an ulterior motive. It's just not the media.