Welllllllll ... it seems that (according to a planted stooge at a news conference) it is the news medias fault that things are going so bad in Iraq .....errrr .. ahh ... well it's their fault that Americans have such a poor grasp of how well things are going in Iraq ... ahhhhhhh .... wellll ...... you know because all they do is report the bad items coming from Iraq and none of the good things ........ uhhhhhh ... it's because so many of the reporters in Iraq don't get out in the field and see what is really going on - all they do is sit around the hotels and make reports from their balconies and that's why there is talk of a possible civil war .... GOOD LORD - CAN'T THEY GET THEIR STORIES STRAIGHT?

So far, 88 or 89 news people have been killed in Iraq (so much for NOT getting out in the field).

These softball questions were tossed to Bush during a news conference and it was obvious (even to other reporters and television commentators) that this person was a planted stooge and was in the audience to try to help Bush bolster his numbers ... numbers that have been steadily been falling the closer Iraq gets to the civil war that Bush denies heatedly will never happen.

It is still ironic to me that even after 3 years, GW still hasn't been able to come up with a justification excuse for the invasion of Iraq that can stand the test of time (or) resonate with Americans here and abroad.

NOW WE ARE BEING BOMBARDED WITH THE EXCUSE THAT "IT IS THE NEWS MEDIA" THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BAD NEWS COMING OUT OF IRAQ.

AGAIN - King George is trying to abdicate his responsibility for the mess that will be waiting for his replacement when George finally leaves the Whitehouse. I foresee even more turbulent times ahead of us as a NEW House and Senate and a NEW President try to unravel the many threads and knots that Junior has embroiled our country in throughout the world.

Not only is the war in Iraq not over (as Bush so proudly announced), the war on terrorism has turned out to be an absolute sham ... the only thing the administration has managed to do is to deprive Americans of some of their civil liberties in the name of National Security ... the so called screening process for packages coming into this country and control of our borders is an absolute joke ... when only one out of every ten containers is even looked at (let alone actually inspected), an entire army could be smuggled in via containers and nobody would know about it until an attack was actually carried out. Will this happen? ... your guess is as good as mine (and probably better than our intelligence agencies) ... for sure, if the plan is to smuggle in weapons and explosives then the odds of the shipment being intercepted is quite low.


As far as this latest attack by the administration against the news media, it is just another in a long list of excuses for Bush's and his cronies' piss poor performance since GW became President of the United States. Not only do GW's numbers continue to fall ... any expectation that Bush will resolve the mess in Iraq continue to head for the toilet bowl.

So much for the 'good intentions' that some Republican supporters try to assign to Bush and his administration.

Hey, if you and people like you think "Dubbya" is a failure and incompetent, then why did Americans re-elect him?

Because they probably felt alternative was worse. Not to mention there are not many politicians willing to step up to the plate as well.

I agree that the media is showing mostly the "bad" things in Iraq. When was the last time you saw a story about the rebuilding and the humanitarian assistance and all the other good things that are going on over there? You don't. Why is that? Ratings.

I wish it were as simple as ratings.

The fact is, the media has had an axe to grind against Bush for some time. Heck, during the election (2004), someone leaked the ABC news memo demanding reporters go harder on Bush and lay off Kerry.

Personally, I see the bias. It's fairly obvious. The difference, of course, is now folks can do their own research, read the government docs for themselves (like the 9/11 report) online, and can challenge the worldview presented by the major media outlets.

Gone is the time of unquestioned acceptance of the media and that can only be a good thing, considering the monopoly of information that happened toward the close of the Cold War. News outlets closed their foreign bureaus and started to rely heavily on wire reports from overseas. Often, they simply took what came off the wire as gospel and presented it to the American people. CNN, according to Eason Jordan, whitewashed Saddam's crimes just to have exclusive access inside the country.

This, doesn't even touch the overt instances of bias. Rather's story about the forged docs should've never aired. It was poorly researched and when it became clear to everyone that they were running with a story just to sink Bush, they stuck to it. It absolutely didn't make sense and it ruined anything left of their credibility.

Now, folks can hyperventilate over that one guy who was a blogger and ran the excort service, but who had heard of him prior to the "scandal?" Truthfully? I never did. Never heard from him again, either.

The media has free access to the airwaves and, by the terms of their license, must present programs for the good of the public (usually takes the form of the news). It is essential that they check their biases at the door. Thus far, they've done a poor job and it serves no one any good. The press loses credibility and the American people grow more cynical. Why should anyone take them seriously when they want to cry "Wolf" if they've done nothing but over-hype "Wolf" type stories in the past?

Again, it serves them no good and they're getting their payback.

They've failed the American people by trying to advance their agenda. The American people now have low confidence in the government and the press. While the libertarian in me wishes folks would really have low confidence in the government as problem solver, I want it to be justified.

The press should take the black eye they've earned by their actions and should look to present a more accurate picture of the wars going on. By not doing so, they're simply shills and no better than that blogger/escort service guy.

Originally Posted by Airborne Eagle

Personally, I see the bias. It's fairly obvious. The difference, of course, is now folks can do their own research, read the government docs for themselves (like the 9/11 report) online, and can challenge the worldview presented by the major media outlets.

Unfortunately most won't take the time. They just accept it as fact until the TV shows them refuting evidence or opinions.

Originally Posted by phoenix80

Hey, if you and people like you think "Dubbya" is a failure and incompetent, then why did Americans re-elect him?

Well, he didn'tget a 100% score did he? So there are people in the US that have been against Bush from day 1. And yes, there is also a large group that did vote for him and think he is doing the right things. That is the effect of one's opinion and the difference between people.

Dubbya was re-elected by the people. Not all the people, but over 50% of the people.

The media is baised toward the American liberal left. It's a proven fact. There are those in America that will stop at nothing to destory President Bush. And they will do it to the point of endangering American and Allied lives fighting in Iraq. I never see a good news story coming out of Iraq on the Major four networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, & CNN).

Infact, in the police academy, they tell us not to work with the media or talk to them. Let the PROs (Public Relations Officer) do to it.

The media loves making cops look bad. And you will always read stories of how cops are bad. But you will never hear the stories of cops doing their jobs right.

It's the same with the War on Terror and the clean up of Iraq.

There are more journalists sitting in the green zone than not. You can travel all over Iraq and still not know what's going on, especially when all you're looking at is a small corner of the big picture.

The media IS a problem. As a journalist in Iraq, their job is to make reports to get headlines/viewers. What sells? Blood and carnage. What do they report? Blood and carnage. Heck, sometimes they report it when it didn't even happen.

There press has been doing this for years, though. It didn't just start during OIF. They were sitting in hotels in Panama back in '89 giving first hand accounts of the invasion. And we have seen the same with Iraq and Afghanistan.

They do have an agenda, whether it's left or right doesn't matter. I agree with Eagle, that the press do seem to have an ax to grind against Bush, I just don't think it is the crux. Look at news programs on TV now, it's all sensationalized, from the opening credits to the interviews. They do what they need to do to keep people watching. It's not so much about the dissemination of information anymore, it's about ratings, anti-POTUS just happens to be the "in" thing right now.

the war on terrorism has turned out to be an absolute sham

I have said this before on another thread, but I'll say it again (it sounds quite good, at least imo) Current journalist are busier writing down their own opinions on matters. Even if they are well informed it still is their opinion. In mine, a journalist should go out, investigate an event and try to give the facts free from any political preference. But this is as likely to happen as X-mas and New Years eve on one day.

Originally Posted by Ted

I have said this before on another thread, but I'll say it again (it sounds quite good, at least imo) Current journalist are busier writing down their own opinions on matters. Even if they are well informed it still is their opinion. In mine, a journalist should go out, investigate an event and try to give the facts free from any political preference. But this is as likely to happen as X-mas and New Years eve on one day.

THIS IS THE PRIME EXAMPLE OF ONE OF THE MOST COMMON COMPLAINTS OF EVERDAY PEOPLE WHEN THEY DISCUSS THE MASS MEDIA. REPORTING OPINION INSTEAD OR REPORTING NEWS.