Walter Reed and Anna Nicole: Journalism at Its Best and Worst

In the past week or so, we've seen the best and worst examples of modern journalism.

The best was illustrated by the Washington Post's revelation of the squalid conditions at the Walter Reed hospital's outpatient quarters for returning wounded from Iraq. The words and pictures were troubling in the extreme.

At first, the military tried to PR its response that the series described conditions that were worse than existed. On the contrary, the stories were on target.

Improvements began, Secretary of Defense Bob Gates was rightly angry, and an investigation was promised.

While the newspaper's work will probably earn it a Pulitzer Prize, the larger meaning is that the military dropped the ball. Some heads should roll over this outrage.

The politicians in Congress jumped in with predictable anger but after the fact. Was anyone in Congress or the White House on watch? Both are in the same city.

As for the worst, the coverage of the soap-opera demise and burial controversy surrounding Anna Nicole Smith and the in-and-out rehab circus around Britney Spears has been embarrassing.

Cable TV is not alone in running these stories into the ground. The networks jumped in, too, albeit with less breathless reports. The tabloids loved both stories.

The response to these sins is predictable: It is what the public wants. But is it really?

The country is fracturing with an unending war in Iraq, the Taliban are regrouping in Afghanistan, Iran is making nuclear noise, and North Korea remains a touchy problem with a crazed leader.

Those are just the foreign policy stories.

Domestic affairs include the escalating cost of medical care, energy independence, and a deadlock over immigration policy.

 Can't editors and TV managers relegate the stories on Smith and Spears to news briefs and concentrate on what is really important to readers and viewers?