"This isn't about consequences, it's about the media being on the other side, which for the most part, they have been for thirty years."

It's not just about the media being on the other side.

Imagine the modern media during the American Civil war.
It's not just that modern media could have sided in the South [and probably would have- esp with that romantic General Lee].

No, it's even more stupid than this- their intention {if they were more successful} would ultimately destroy the Free Press. They have "sided" with the non-free press, they are working towards a totalitarian world in which is "ruled by" propaganda.
Meaning simply, if their propaganda actually worked then the conclusion would obviously be to focus more on what worked.
So here you have a very important "institution" of the free world, attempting to commit suicide- though it's a slow suicide and probably not actually succeed.

Also it should be not be forgotten that the press has the ability to argue for it's point of view [it not only has access it is THE access to the public] and thereby persuade the America public. But the America public has not been persuaded and continues to supported a military policy which is roughly the same as the one established after WWII.
Now, btw, I think it would a good idea to change this- so therefore I favor the idea of this actually being debated and through a political process changed. But what the press is doing is wrong. And it prolongs the suffering and death of this war.

The terrorists can't win this war, they are capable of getting to the point of killing a lot more people then they already have. But unless "winning a war" is creating some kind of hell on Earth, they can't "win". Their goal is similar to flying to the Moon with wax wings.

So, how dangerous is the press siding with terrorists? Well the terrorist only survive because of the press. If there was a "off" switch for the press, it would also turn off the terrorists- in strict military terms the terrorists are utterly insignificant.
Of course I am not saying I want this "off" switch for the press. And I would be remiss if I didn't say there are some silver linings of what the press is doing- I mean people as general rule should not trust the press very much. So their betrayal of the public is "good" [very, very "good"- excessively "good":) ] in this respect. And their propaganda effort in general and bad reporting is probably a single greatest factor in the growth and importance of blogs and internet. And in terms of the Iraqi war itself, the terrorists attempt to terrorize Iraqis has caused Iraqis to be less passive and more interested in taking control of their destiny- the terrorists are focusing their attention on the possibility that things could get much worse if they don't act.

I guess we are fortunate that terrorism don't work nor does propaganda- though in the short term, it appears to be effective- perhaps a closer description is a veneer of massive "success" with longer term deeper consequences.