“Get the hell out of our region!”

That’s what Azari Jahromi, a minister of telecommunications for the Iranian government, tweeted Tuesday night (early Wednesday in Iran), after Iran fired ballistic missiles at two Iraqi bases that house U.S. soldiers.

That seemed to sum up the sentiment among Iranian media after the attacks, which Iranian TV said were in response to the U.S. killing of Revolutionary Guard Gen. Qasem Soleimani. President Donald Trump isn’t the only one wielding a Twitter account like a bludgeon.

So once again, on a January night, audiences watched as cable networks reported from the region. It was eerily reminiscent at times of Jan. 16, 1991, kicking off the first Gulf War when the U.S. bombed Iraq. CNN reporters Bernard Shaw, John Holliman and Peter Arnett hunkered under a table in a hotel room and reported on U.S. bombs falling on Baghdad — basically falling on them.

Why Tuesday's coverage was different

Yet there were striking differences, as well, in both the strikes and the coverage.

For one thing, U.S. troops Tuesday were being attacked. Also, the U.S. had a large coalition of countries supporting the 1991 bombings. Not so when it came to the strike on Soleimani.

But those things are obvious.

Other differences revealed themselves over the course of watching CNN, Fox News and MSNBC report on Tuesday night. In 1991, CNN was the only 24-hour news network on the air. And the coverage was remarkably straightforward that night. There weren’t attacks from politicians on each other, at least not then. The correspondents didn’t offer opinions, other than sharing the opinion that they wanted to stay alive.

And it was riveting.

It wouldn’t last. The world, and the media, are a lot different now. The coverage of the Tuesday attacks showed how.

Most striking, at least if you’ve watched enough of this kind of thing: During the early reporting, Fox News refrained from cheerleading.

That’s typical. During the breaking-news portion of the cycle, the networks are often indistinguishable from one another. They all do a good job.

When news commentators arrive, the tone shifts

It’s when the story stalls and commentators start weighing in — or those annoying panels on CNN that would fill a city bus — that things turn … different.

Chris Cuomo on CNN actually remained pretty civil, for him. Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, while there’s no question where she stands politically, was mostly inquisitive in interviewing experts.

Then there is Sean Hannity.

To the surprise of no one, Hannity immediately started making threats, saying bombers were on the way to the region and sounding like a schoolyard bully, gloating about how Mullahs better hide in their bunkers and refinery workers might want to change jobs pretty quick. He could not have sounded happier.

This is a problem.

When it comes to reporting the news, and when reasonable people like Chris Wallace weigh in on Fox News, it actually contributes to the conversation. When Hannity brags about potential bloodshed it isn’t just dispiriting in comparison. It’s dangerous.

It’s one thing to defend Trump’s lies about the biggest inauguration in history or whatever. It’s another to openly campaign for more attacks — and we know how Trump watches Hannity.

Networks started sending emails bragging that they broke the story first, but in an age of live-tweeting, does that even matter anymore? Tuesday night was a reminder that, for all of the technical advances, we are in uncharted territory, with Trump's fast and loose association with the truth. No matter what side of the aisle you support, healthy skepticism is crucial.

Blind faith and willful ignorance are cancers on the media and society. We need to know the truth, report the truth — believe the truth.

It’s harder than ever, which will make the next few days fascinating.

Reach Goodykoontz at bill.goodykoontz@arizonarepublic.com. Facebook: facebook.com/GoodyOnFilm. Twitter: @goodyk.

What are you waiting for? Subscribe to azcentral.com today