Colonel Hunt Agrees with General Sanchez's Media Criticism

Photo of Justin McCarthy.

As NewsBusters previously documented, most of the mainstream media highlighted General Ricardo Sanchez’s criticism of the Bush administration’s handling of the Iraq War, but ignored his criticism of the media’s coverage. The one exception, of course, is Fox News.

Retired Colonel and Fox News Military Analyst David Hunt appeared on the October 17 edition of "Fox and Friends" to discuss Sanchez’s remarks. Although Hunt conceded Sanchez "is the wrong guy to be doing this" due to the Abu Ghraib scandal, he believes that "he’s right."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Gretchen Carlson wondered if, with the lack of coverage of Hunt’s media criticism, "it proved his point." Colonel Hunt responded in the affirmative and then blasted "The New York Times" for covering Abu Ghraib 57 times, but ignoring the news of a Congressional Medal of Honor winner.

The entire transcript is below.

GENERAL RICARDO SANCHEZ, USA RET: Over the course of this war, tactically insignificant events have become strategic defeats for our country because of the tremendous power and impact of the media, and by extension, you individually the journalist.

BRIAN KILMEADE: He was looking at us. Retired General Ricardo Sanchez was quick to criticize both the administration and the media over the Iraq War. So has the media's coverage of his speech proved his point, Gretchen?

GRETCHEN CARLSON: Fox News military analyst and author of "On the Hunt," Colonel David Hunt, is here to tell us what he thinks. Good morning to you Colonel.

COLONEL DAVID HUNT, USA RET: Hi guys. I'm on the couch again.

CARLSON: Yeah you are.

STEVE DOOCY: On the hunt, on the couch.

HUNT: On the hunt, thanks.

CARLSON: Did it prove his point that he talks about, he slams the media, blames them for certain things that are happening in Iraq, and then, basically nobody covers that part of the speech?

HUNT: Yeah, except for you guys, Fox. I mean, O'Reilly did it.

DOOCY: Shocking.

HUNT: Is that, is that- yeah. My, my opinion, Sanchez is the wrong guy to be doing this, but I think he's right. And the, and the media on both sides, in my opinion have deserved to get slapped around a bit on this. But it's clearly the people who ran the war are more culpable.

DOOCY: Well, the headline on Drudge a couple of days ago, when he said this, and it was in front of some military journalists, was that is was a nightmare over in Iraq. That was what Sanchez said in a portion of his speech. But then he went on to blast the people covering the war saying, "you're only doing this bad stuff, and you don't have the bigger picture."

HUNT: Yeah it was-

DOOCY: And so the media doesn't- "oh we don't want to examine our self forget about that. He just said 'nightmare' let's put that in big type."

HUNT: Yeah, I think the story was two fold. It was this guy who was commanding the place, and oh by the way, should be jail for, for what happened with Abu Ghraib. I mean, he was a three star general in charge and did not. He gets a pass. But at the time, at the time he was in command, it was chaotic, in complete chaos. And so he's got to take responsibility for that. He was the boss. But absolutely the press, for example the "Times" covered Abu Ghraib 57 times. I mean that's, that's outrageous coverage. We still don't have the Medal of Honor winner being covered by the biggest, one of the biggest papers in the world.

DOOCY: We have that an hour from now.

KILMEADE: The parents are here today.

HUNT: Well, this guy's unbelievable. I know that story. These are the bravest of the brave. This is the Congressional Medal of Honor, the first one, its got to be covered.

KILMEADE: Well, but, but Colonel, overall, Sanchez, you've always, one of the things you've always said is where are they coming from? What are they trying to do now? He can't be happy with the way his tenure's been tainted, the way they've stapled him to Abu Ghraib, and he never got the other star before he left. So is that bitterness speaking?

HUNT: Yeah, it's partly bitterness, but that again, but it's easy to shoot the messenger, because Sanchez is not that highly regarded, but what he said about the conduct of the war and the press, is accurate to the point of the issue, because no one understood, neither the administration or the press, the nature of the war, which was an insurgency, which was about four wars going on. And so they would report sometimes a battle on one street to make it chaotic when in fact a lot of great things were going on.

CARLSON: But quickly, why didn't he speak up when he had the chance? Because you got Senator McCain on our show yesterday saying he was in all of the strategy meetings he never spoke up.

HUNT: Yeah Lindsey Graham did the same thing too, because we don't produce generals in every service who will speak out. That's not how they're produced.

KILMEADE: They do it behind closed doors with politicians.

HUNT: No, not necessarily, not their bosses.

—Justin McCarthy is a news analyst at Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Information Operations.

At the start of the war on terrorism, the National Command Authority announced to the press that they had rightly concluded that the nature of warfare now makes it just as vital to fight the fight in the media in order to win popular opinion as it is to fight the fight militarily.

To successfully fight this new type of war, they decided a US office on Information Operations (IO) would be necessary and it would supplement military efforts.  This office would be responsible for reacting to enemy propaganda and would do so by putting out the US side of the story.  This would mirror efforts conducted by FDR and Churchill during WWII, but would be conducted on a wider front now that their are so many more media choices.  During WWII the effort consisted of such items as the BBC service to occuppied France, and the US effort to drop leaflets to occupied Europe.  The new effort would be much larger and even encompass the internet.

As soon as the US Press/MSM heard this, they FREAKED.  "The Government will disseminate the US's side of this fight to the world?  But that is OUR Job," they moaned.

So, after a short while the plan came to grief as the US people decided to allow their war effort to be placed in the hands of the MSM who were no fan of the effort to start with.  This insured that the US side of any issue is usually presented half heartedly, or as both General Sanchez and Col Hunt have pointed out, disparagingly.

Now today we have Hollywood making movies showing the US effort to be at worst Maniacal, and at best incompetant.

Many of us noted back in 2002 that the current state of affairs Vis-a-vis the MSM would be happening, but it is just now coming in to public notice.

I am totally confused at

I am totally confused at how Fox News and everyone on this blog are convinced that Sanchez was lambasting the 'MSM' as you guys so lovingly refer to it -- in his speech he mentioned 4 reporters, Joe Galloway, Tom Shanker, Sig Chritiansen and John Burns - do you know who these guys are?? Joe Galloway has repeatedly written against the war, in a column from July of this year he said " the Bush administration looks remarkably more like an organized crime ring than one of the arms of the American govt" Tom Shanker works for the New York Times people! the New York Times -OMG and if you don't know who John Burns is, well, you haven't been watching much PBS lately because he is routinely on Jim Lehrer -- so how everybody is convinced he's talking about the 'MSM' is beyond me -- you only hear what you want to hear, same as that buffoon O'Reilly

in case I didn't make myself

in case I didn't make myself clear in the previous post or for those of you who haven't heard Sanchez's speech -- he lauded these 4 reporters as being fair and accurate

Not Quite Complete

1)  Sanchez singled them out as exceptions to the rule.

2)  Last night on CBS'es Up To The Minute, the newsreader asked analyst Col. Mitch Mitch, US Army retired about his thought concerning Sanchez's criticism towards MSM.  Other MSM types have said similar comments as well.

Please read the transcript of Sanchez's comments or watch video in its entirety.

Killing them with kindness isn't working.  Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.

So, is your point that the

So, is your point that the four reporters are NOT members of the MSM?

Or is your point that those four members are NOT fair and balanced in their presentation?

my point, B(ig) D(umb), is

my point, B(ig) D(umb), is that they ARE members of the MSM and they ARE accurately reporting -- all that is going wrong in this 'war on terror'

Ooooh hostile....  I

Ooooh hostile....  I have not attacked  you, so why do you attack me?  I thought libs were supposed to be beyond that.

So, your point is that EVERYTHING is going wrong in the GWOT? 

And thus everything to be reported by the press must focus on that which is wrong to the exclusion of that which might be right?

My brain hurts! All this

My brain hurts!

All this time we have had liberals telling us that Iraq has nothing to do with the GWOT. Now we are getting reports that our military has just about snuffed out Al Queada from Iraq. How is it that we are killing off terrorists if they ain't there?

Thnigs that make you go "Hmmmmmmmm?". 

Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

Confirmation Requested

Ah... but you missed last night's very late night new's show Up To The Minute interview on CBS with retired U.S. Army Colonel Mitch Mitchell, military analyst for CBS, on his opinions concerning Sanchez's critique.

When asked about Sanchez's criticism of MSM, to paraphrase, Mitchell somewhat enthusiastically stated he never once experienced treatment from the MSM as Sanchez detailed!

CBS does not have this video up yet, if at all in the future, but I hope someone can track this parsed and potentially pandering statement by Mitchell.

I don't think it was just a bad dream, being that it was so late and I was in bed.  Still, I would like some confirmation on what I believe I heard.  It really got my attention for its absurdity.

 

Killing them with kindness isn't working.  Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.