But the problems of Walter Reed's veterans did not just happen.  Unfortunately, the mainstream media was not paying attention.  Mark Benjamin at the online magazine, Salon, wrote his first story about the horrendous living conditions of wounded soldiers living in Fort Stewart, Georgia in 2003.  Just two years ago, Benjamin followed up with a searing story about the suicide of a combat veteran angry and discouraged by the treatment he was getting at Walter Reed.  Another of Benjamin's stories, dated January 27, 2005, blasted an Army policy to charge some outpatients for their meals. Within the context of that story, Benjamin touched on many of the issues that The Post would target two years later.  "[P]rocessing at Walter Reed can take over a year, much to the frustration of soldiers who would prefer to get outpatient treatment near their homes and families.  Soldiers in medical hold [outpatients] also complain they are still expected to line up for daily formations and buy new uniforms even as they struggle with debilitating physical and mental trauma from their service in Iraq."

To its credit, National Public Radio's "On The Media" interviewed Benjamin last week about these early, ground-breaking stories that did not yield to greater media scrutiny.

Why didn't the mainstream media pick up where Benjamin left off?  Why did the media largely fail to follow up on a hearing on February 17, 2005, by the House Committee on Government Reform, that looked into medical treatment for wounded guardsmen and reservists?  At a time when a Republican Congress was doing less oversight, the Committee's chairman, Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) was pursuing this issue.  "For the last year, along with the Government Accountability Office, our committee has been investigating the plight of injured Army Guard and Reserve soldiers seeking quality care, standardized medical and personal assistance and comprehensive service. We're here today to ask some basic but troubling questions," Davis said in 2005.  Added Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), "The way the administration is treating wounded soldiers and veterans is a disgrace."

The hearings and the Salon stories were part of a public record that any reporter could have accessed.  This scandal did not have to wait until the families of Walter Reed soldiers being treated as outpatients got so upset they approached The Washington Post.

Post reporters and editors are to be praised for taking those complaints seriously and following up on them.  But why did this scandal take so long to reach a critical mass of the public and decision-makers?  Benjamin, interviewed on "On the Media" surmised that Americans simply weren't ready for this depressing news two years ago.   Also, the Army tried to control what reporters could see and who they could talk to at these hospital facilities, making it harder to get at the truth.

But that's not a good enough answer.  The truth is, with all the cutbacks in both broadcast and print newsrooms , the emphasis on entertainment and "news you can use," and  the bottom line over solid, investigative journalism, there is little incentive for reporters to go the extra mile and find good stories, stories they might not be able to report because they take too much time or they may rock too many boats, or are "too depressing" for the demographic the news outlet is seeking to court. Fewer and fewer newspapers have Washington bureaus, and reporters are not encouraged to cover hearings, read GAO reports, or do all the tedious, time-consuming work that substantive journalism requires.

So yes, we should be happy that journalists made a difference here.  And that the government has reacted in a way that might make a difference for thousands of recovering veterans.  But we should not forget that tens of thousands of other soldiers could have been helped if only the media got to this particular story much searlier.