The Business of Covering a War

In Hotel warrior's, John Fialka talks about how the press described the Marines and Armies roles during the war. He talks of how Marines were eager to get covered by the media, while the Army saw risks in allowing the media to follow them. With all the media coverage, it pretty much created kind of an accidental propaganda. Marines were being seen as the hero's of the war being reported by name and rank, while the Army was seen just by the unit. The public was being led to believe we were winning the war thanks to the Marines. When in reality the Marines were there as more of a "sideshow" and for support, while the Army was there for the "main attack." In my opinion I don't think it should matter who was doing more as long as they win the war quickly and with few fatalities as possible. But on the other hand it also makes you wonder, if they weren't showing us what really was true with something as menial as this what else are they misinterpreting for us?