Hierarchy Of Trust

One of the interesting dynamics of the war in Iraq is where people get the news that forms their views on the conflict. The diffusion of sources and outlets for war news has never been as broad as it today and there's no such thing as "the story" on the war in Iraq. There are many different stories, often contradictory, competing for an audience. And who you trust to give you the news from Iraq probably says a lot about how you feel about the war.

Here's what I call my "Hierarchy of Trust" for reliable, accurate information about what is really going in Iraq:

At the top: Troops on the ground.
Even though they can only report on the sector they're in, sometimes not being able to see the larger picture, they still provide the most honest assessment of the good, the bad, and the ugly.

One level down: Reporters who have been in Iraq for extended periods of time, have a deep understanding of the military and history, and spend most of their time in the field. Michael Yon is an obvious example and I would also put John Burns from the The New York Times in this all too small group.

Next level down: US military commanders and spokespeople in Iraq. Overall, a pretty good record of not sugar-coating things.

Next level down: The balcony brigade of reporters who spend most of their time in their hotels in Baghdad as well as reporters who may get out where the action is, but are not trustworthy because of their obvious anti-American and anti-military biases.

At the bottom: Politicians from either party who spend one of two days in Iraq and then come back to tell us how things are going. Please. It's like visiting the Mall of America and then making pronouncements about crime in Minneapolis. Don't misunderstand, I applaud those politicians who travel to Iraq and believe there are good reasons for doing so. However, their views of Iraq are by necessity very narrow and limited in scope and scale.

Here's a graphical representation: