"In other words, Reuters must amend its copy to suit or its reporters may be harmed. This is another aspect of asymmetrical warfare that goes unrecognized. Terrorists are essentially free to censor news coverage or even alter it by intimidation whereas Coalition Forces are strictly forbidden from even thinking about it."
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/

Of course, the pen is mighter than the sword. But no one ever said a sword or pen is required to serve only good causes. Without the press coverage of terror acts, we simply would not be having this war on terror. The Pen is the only significant tactical advantage of this enemy.
We have the most powerful miltary on Earth- and the power of the pen *could* defeat it. It's not in question of which "side" of this conflict is good- the terrorist are evil beyond any reasonable doubt. The US is on the side of good- beyond any reasonable doubt. Yet reason is WEAK, judgement has FAILED, and we find other selves in this mess. Who is the most responsible for this mess- "How did it come to this"? This dark shadow is the sole creation of the pen.
Go back to the Gulf War. Why did Saddam not leave Kuwait, when he faced with a miltary which to say conservatively "out gunned" his miltary somewhere around 100 to 1. Saddam was counting on the power of the pen.
Whether he knew it was actually power of the pen or he just though we were generally "weak" is unknown- but something made him think that if he could kill 10,000 Coalition soldiers [out a total of over 500,000 [less than 2%] regardless of his troop losses, he could win the war [he could keep Kuwait- or at least "sell it" off at a high price].
Suppose it were possible, that before the war started it was announced that there would be a "news blackout" [a supreme sacrifice made by the America public to our miltary soldiers- in other words no reporting on the war until say 6 months after the war started]. How would Saddam react? Would he realize the significance? Would he then think of the war in conventional terms, and thereby see the futility of trying to hold Kuwait?

Now, I'm not suggesting we censor the news, I'm just trying to show what it's affects are. Now, imagine what the affect would be if the pen was on "the side of good". We are back to the topic of the influence of soft power. If the pen could be more powerful than mightest miltary ever seen on the planet, what could "it" do? Imagine instead of the media fearing these terrorists and "whoring" to these terrorists, that it decided it would get together and resist the threats and acts such as terrorists of "sawing off people's heads".
Or a different way of looking at this, is to see that terrorists are providing "content" for the news. The terrorist are providing an opportunity for the news, to show snuff films and carnage in general. It's not as though there is any shortage of films showing death or porn, but it's seen as legitimate news to run this stuff if terrorists do it. Is it legitimate?
There is a symbiotic relationship here, between the Press and terrorists- terrorist "allow" gore and hideous behaviour to be legitimate news items, and the press is the publisher working for the terrorists.
I would say that the press is acting immoral. I would say that terrorists are mostly a product of Western culture. Blaming it on Islam is pointing the finger at the wrong target. The Media has created this hideous corruption of Islam.