"War, unlike any other news event, asks profound questions of journalists," writes Roy Greenslade in the Guardian. "How do we separate truth from propaganda? How do we overcome the dilemma of political and military leaders controlling access to vital information? What value do we place on what we see on the frontline as against what we are told back at headquarters? ... These questions hovered over last week's Media Guardian forum on war coverage as reporters and desk-bound decision-makers explained how and why they acted as they did.

The U.S. Department of Defense has launched a new $1.7 million ad campaign designed to convince parents and other adults to encourage young people to join the military. The Washington Times reports that campaign features five successful veterans, highlighting "qualities such as commitment and perseverance" that the vets have gained from service. "We focus on the more emotional aspects the military has to offer," George Rogers, vice president of the agency that created the ads, told the Times.

Ten years ago, on June 28, 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court issued "the most influential ruling you've never heard of," says the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy. In the case known as Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., they directing judges to act as "gatekeepers" in the courtroom, excluding expert testimony if they deemed it was "junk science." "But what started as a well-intentioned attempt to ensure reliable and relevant evidentiary science has had troubling consequences. ...