Commentaries appear at regular intervals. If you would like an invited commentary for your publication, please let me know!

Are we there yet? Are the troops in Baghdad yet? Have we found Weapons of Mass Destruction yet? Have we won the war yet?

It is enough to drive even the most hardened parent insane: the childish yammering of the impatient media. Not all the media, mind you; just the ones who are never happy. You know them—first they complained that we were not trying hard enough to find a diplomatic solution. Then they were not happy not knowing all the details of the war plans. Then they were not happy when their first guess at the war plan did not work out. Then they were not happy when there was a one-day lull in the action. Troops with no food! Troops with no water! Troops encircled and doomed to defeat! Where are the troops?! Where are the embeds?! Who moved my cheese?!

The universe we inhabit has suddenly become a nexus of Nattering Nabobs of Negativism on Internet Time. It was bad enough when we had the normal level of reporters, anchors, editors and writers all competing for space in our attention span. Now with the war the number of people screaming for our attention has skyrocketed. You would think a war would be interesting enough on its own to hold our attention. The problem is, everyone is covering the same war.

At first the real-time images and constant flow of information was a wonderful sight to behold. Then the commentary started. Not content to let the story tell itself, various news organizations started second-guessing everything from the supply chain to the choice of colors for the biochem suits. Not only has commentary from different reporters within the same organization conflicted in tone, content and conclusion—that is to be expected—but we have also seen conflicting stories from the same reporters from day to day. It is as if they have forgotten what they wrote the day before, or perhaps realized that their previous efforts were not well received. And since the war has not changed, then their opinion of it must!

Perhaps it is overcompensation for the lack of control. While news organizations have reporters embedded with the troops, they are at the mercy of the military schedule of events—not to mention the inconvenience of a real, live war.

Embed: "Pardon me, but could we stop the fire-fight for a minute? Our 6 P.M. news slot is here."

GI: "But of course! Troops, cease fire and fall in. Network news, we're ready for our close-up!"

If only it were that simple. That neat. That tidy. But war is messy, unreliable and prone to last-minute changes. Networks hate that. I witnessed a hapless embed desperately trying to get a sergeant to comment on a firefight as it was going on. Fortunately for the embed, the sergeant did not unload his assault rifle into the reporter for distracting him when enemy troops were trying their best to kill him. Instead, he gave a pretty thorough description of the action and provided short, snappy answers to the ensuing stream of stupid questions. Our army has gone Hollywood. Every NCO is now a press agent as well as being an Army of One.

I suppose that is necessary these days. In a previous article I noted that the allies had to fight a propaganda war as well as the real war. News organizations, often a source of propaganda if not a conduit for it, had to go live with what they had. No time for editing, no time to pick and choose which shot to use, no time to rehearse that certain facial expression to feign interest, concern, etc. What a nightmare! Live news! Unscripted! Unfiltered! People could interpret it any way they wanted to!

This, of course, could not go on. Something had to be done. Someone had to do something.

Obviously, the time had come for Probing Questions from Pool Reporters.

Are we there yet? Are the troops in Baghdad yet? Have we found Weapons of Mass Destruction yet? Have we won the war yet? Why not? Who's to blame? Why are there mistakes? Who made them? Why isn't everything perfect?!

To their credit, military spokespeople have been endlessly patient with the reporters. I would have long ago told them to go take a few classes in Military History and come back when they had something intelligent to ask. It appears that until the war is over, we will have to endure the media desperately searching for a unique angle on the war. Short of that, reporters want to be the first one to ask a memorable question. Something that will rank up there with, "what did the President know and when did he know it?" Or, "are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?" But more likely something like, "are you happy that we have won the war?"

Is it too late to seek a diplomatic solution?

The universe we inhabit has suddenly become a nexus of Nattering Nabobs of Negativism on Internet Time.

"Troops, cease fire and fall in. Network news, we're ready for our close-up!"

Fortunately for the embed, the Sergeant did not unload his assault rifle into the reporter for distracting him when enemy troops were trying their best to kill him.

Obviously, the time had come for Probing Questions from Pool Reporters.