I think it's ludicrous for a journalistic article to call it a "disturbing speech."

There is much to complain about the legacy mainstream media.  

Much of their reporting, perhaps virtually all of it, is press release journalism.  An advocacy group releases a position paper, an industry group issues a policy statement, academia publishes papers (almost uniformly from a singular ideological perspective), an NGO releases some findings.  The legacy mainstream media rewrite the press release with no background knowledge or critical examination.  It is cheap and fast and sensationalist.  And dreck.

The rest of their reporting tends to be ideological propaganda.  Old fashioned, hard hitting, deeply researched reporting from an independent and informed perspective?  Vanishingly rare.  

It is not only that they are Ben Rhodes journalists (who "literally know nothing") but also that that they can neither write well nor frame or develop an argument.  

Anne Althouse goes to town on the legacy media with Best bad headline from the Hegsethathon.  

The award goes to The New Republic: "Hegseth Summoned Military Leaders to Say 'FAFO' in Disturbing Speech."

I think it's ludicrous for a journalistic article to call it a "disturbing speech."  Who is disturbed? The headline writer? Were the military leaders disturbed? All of them? Some of them? Don't create fake objectivity. Someone needs to have been disturbed. I want to know who and why.

As a lover of language and logic, she has a number of harsh comments on the increasingly lazy reporting that passes for journlaims.