Are the media wobbling in support of the war?
In accusing the British press and broadcasters of going wobbly in their coverage of the war on terrorism, Jack Straw was - presumably - intending to try and shore up support for the official coalition line on the war's aims and progress.
The prime minister has also been talking the same talk, though to a different audience.
His call was not for stiffening the resolve of the hacks, but for the British people to show their moral fibre as we proceed in the pursuit of the Taleban and Bin Laden.
These messages will, I suspect, be no more effective than some of the ordinance being dropped on Afghanistan.
If our leaders really do believe the media are wobbling and the public wavering, they should be looking at themselves for the reasons.
Widespread confusion
If the media and the public are expressing doubts about the conduct and direction of the war, then it's only because the political and military storyline on the conflict is itself increasingly confused and uncertain.
Part of Jack Straw's attack on the press and the broadcasters included two extraordinary claims.
First, that the media have "no memory"; the second, the media has been "neglecting" the causes of the conflict.
The no memory jibe was a point about the so-called Kosovo wobble, when the British media allegedly became sceptical about Nato's war aims, days before the Serbs capitulated.
In truth, Straw is the one guilty of forgetting his history, as a look back at some previous conflicts shows- and there is no better place to turn to than America's 1962-75 war in Vietnam.
Scapegoats
Within days of America's final, humiliating scramble to get out of Saigon, its political and military leadership were scratching around for scapegoats.
They found them in the newsrooms of the American press and television.
The latter in particular were blamed for losing the war. Too much graphic footage and negative reporting had, it was said, poisoned public opinion against the war and given aid and comfort to America's enemies.
This was pathetic stuff. As Peter Braestrup, then a distinguished war correspondent with the Washington Post, pointed out in his brilliant book, Big Story, the media did not lose America the war in Vietnam. It was lost by the politicians and the generals.
If they cannot spell out clearly the big story in wartime - what the war is about, why it is being fought in the way it is and the ultimate objectives - then the media, quite properly, start asking questions and the public become sceptical or worse.
Turning on the media in times like these is always a sign of weakness, not of confident purpose.
With Washington and London often sending out contradictory messages in telling the story about the war on terrorism, it's hardly surprising that sections of the British media are picking up on the apparent confusion.
Examining causes
As for Straw's accusation that the press and broadcasters are neglecting the causes of the present conflict - well, that depends on how you define causes.
While the media have never (despite Straw's protests) let the World Trade Center atrocity slip off the agenda, they have also - quite rightly - become interested in what has helped birth the actions of Bin Laden and his followers. In this the media seem to be playing it just right.
To adapt a phrase, if they are being tough on terrorism (and they certainly are) they are also starting to get tough on the causes of terrorism.
Until such time as the politicians and the military leadership give the media and the public a clear steer about this war, Mr Straw's criticisms will fuel only resentment.
The press and the public have, as previous wars have shown, the stomach to absorb losses and setbacks in war - but only if they have a firm grasp of what the struggle is about.
As someone once said of World War II, "although we didn't always know what was going on, we always knew what were fighting for and that kept us going".
We are in urgent need of leaders able to provide a similar guide in finding a way through our present troubles.