I know so many individuals who are currently serving in the military and also veterans and Lee's narrative is compelling because she is trying to tell the "true" stories behind war, specifically WWII. What I liked most about this story was the investigative reporting she did. This could be considered a historical piece, but so much investigation was needed. I liked how she covered the way the media portrayed the war and gives a valid point on why we remember only certain parts of the war such as Pearl Harbor because it was seen in the media so often and still is today. She strives to explain how the media censored and restrained many news stories that reporters wanted to publish about the horrific things soldiers were going through. But, most of these stories weren't run because the image of the strong, attractive solider that the media was portraying didn't want to be ruined. I think today the war in Iraq has also in a way been filtered by the media. Obviously we see more graphic content of war then 50 years ago but most of the time we only hear about the same things over and over again. How many times have we heard a story about a road side bomb, but never a story about the solider's family who died. I think covering a war would be one of the hardest things to do as a reporter because where do you draw the line of how much you should tell your reader. I remember in Media Law last semester we debated about a certain photo that was published of a solider that was dead. For the general population is this a good thing to show? I think it is. But, for the family I would not agree with printing it but which side do you choose?