The U.S. Army late Thursday reversed course and decided to allow limited media access to Sarah Palin's book tour event at Ft. Bragg on Monday.  Originally, the Army planned to ban press coverage because, a spokesman told the AP, the Army didn't want the event to turning into something spotlighting political opinions "directed against the Commander-in-Chief".  The Ft. Bragg spokesman also said the reason for not allowing press coverage was to keep the event from "turning into a political platform".  Under pressure, the Army will now let a small press pool cover the event but not question either Palin or her supporters on base. 

This situation is troublesome.  If the general public is allowed into an event at a U.S. military facility why would anyone think the news media could or should be banned?  In fact, don't military regulations mandate that when military facilities are open to the public, they have to be open to the news media, too?  Standard operating procedure in this country is that if the general public is allowed into an event, most of the time, so are reporters and photographers.  It's done in order that those members of the public who can't attend may read about and/or see the event.  A private event held in a private, non-taxpayer funded place is an entirely different matter.  Also different, a meeting on a military base where matters of national security are being discussed.  The news media would not expect to be allowed in.  But a book signing by a politician?  There isn't a reason under the sun good enough to keep the press out or limit access.  While Palin is out of office now, her book is political and she is a public figure.  She has said in interviews she wants to have an impact on the national dialogue.  Given that her Facebook posting this past summer on health care reform vaulted the phrase "death panels" to the top of the national conversation, she remains a politician who can make news and warrants coverage. 

The fact the Army, at least for a moment, tried to keep the press out of her book signing raises an interesting question.  Is it worried that there are Palin fans among the troops who dislike the current Commander-in-Chief enough that they might actually voice their displeasure in spite of the protocols that prohibit such behavior?  Certainly if reporters and photographers were banned, the Army wouldn't have to worry about the public ever seeing or hearing anything embarrassing.  While such a display would be highly UNLIKELY among troops, Palin supporters have never been shy about voicing their opposition to President Obama, and that's their right.  Perhaps the Army should have considered this possibility prior to agreeing to have the book signing on post.  Images matter, but Palin fans have the right to express their opinions, and members of the media have the right to report on whatever happens at a public event.  It is ironic that the Army  that has fought the world over to ensure speech, press and other freedoms for oppressed peoples would try to squelch the media on U.S. soil. 

 For two weeks, my favorite non-story, story has been the on-going feud between the White House and FOX News.  It's a favorite because it's the proverbial watercooler story that gets everybody talking.  Sadly, it also diverts our attention from the bigger, more pressing and serious stories (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, the joblessness problem, our lack of preparedness for a pandemic of any kind -- i.e., those long lines for the swine flu vaccine) that really need our attention.  Interestly, those stories always have a way of jarringly putting themselves back on the front page.  This weekend's suicide bombings in Baghdad and the deadly helicopter crashes in Afghanistan have, at least for the moment, knocked the White House - FOX News feud out of the news.

Usually, a White House only picks a media fight when it wants to remove the spotlight from something it has done that has gone terribly wrong or wants to turn attention away from something embarrassing.  The Obama White House doesn't have either of the situations in play, so it begs the question, "why fight with FOX"?  One reason may be that it's tired of the Glenn Beck tirades.  It's understandable that the White House might not want to deal with a network that actively promotes a host who accuses the President of having issues with white culture and of being a racist?  It's an absurd charge given that President Obama is half white and was raised by his white mother and grandparents.  In spite of Beck, this White House must deal with FOX, even if it views it with suspicion.  Why?  The U.S. is an example for the rest of the world.  It can't tell the despots of the world that they must tolerate dissent (even if it's biased, wrong, unfair, or made up), if it won't do so itself.  It's much more important to set that example than it is to try to freeze out or punish a network the administration thinks is out to get it. 

The Obama administration isn't the first to feud with the media.  There was no love lost between the Bush administration and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.  The Bush administration, toward the end, didn't send its people to appear on MSNBC's air.  Former spokesperson Dana Perino admitted as much during an appearance earlier this month on the FOX and Friends morning show.  It was wrong of the Bush administration to behave that way then, and it's wrong of the Obama administration to do so now.

There is an old saying in Washington, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer."  I don't know who said it, but in this town, it's always the right move.  President Obama should go right into the lions' den and directly confront FOX on the issues where he believes the network is either biased or wrong.  It's very easy for talk show hosts to say things when they're unchallenged by the people they're talking about, but it's a little more difficult to make nasty or hateful allegations directly to the person's face, especially when that person is the President.

As for FOX News and all the other cable networks, it's time for them to decide what they want to be.  Do they want to be news networks, or talk radio on TV?  Either is good.  Just make a choice.  It's difficult to straddle the line.  It's fine to have the kind of programs hosted by Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Joy Behar, Jane Velez-Mitchell, and all the rest, but let's all stop pretending these folks are journalists doing news-type programs because they're part of a "news network on cable".  And, let's realize that when these shows run alongside other "real" news programming, even if they're contained to different parts of the day, people of all stripes will question the ENTIRE network's perspective.  It won't matter that  the news shows are perfectly fair, balanced, and objective.  If cable networks want to be talk radio on TV, go all in and do it.  But, don't throw in some "news shows", blur the line and still expect to be treated like a news network.