The lie of the 'liberal media'

[billvon 3,080]

A few people keep harping on how the 'negativity of the media' is what caused all these problems we are seeing now. Is that a valid complaint? Let's take a look at some media reports around the time the war began:

--------------------------
"All of the printed and voiced prophecies should be saved in an archive. When these false prophets again appear, they can be reminded of the error of their previous ways and at least be offered an opportunity to recant and repent. Otherwise, they will return to us in another situation where their expertise will be acknowledged, or taken for granted, but their credibility will be lacking." Cal Thomas (4/16/03) (This, BTW, is almost the definition of irony.)

"Iraq Is All but Won; Now What?"
(Los Angeles Times headline, 4/10/03)

"Now that the combat phase of the war in Iraq is officially over, what begins is a debate throughout the entire U.S. government over America's unrivaled power and how best to use it."
(CBS reporter Joie Chen, 5/4/03)

"Congress returns to Washington this week to a world very different from the one members left two weeks ago. The war in Iraq is essentially over and domestic issues are regaining attention."
(NPR's Bob Edwards, 4/28/03)

"Tommy Franks and the coalition forces have demonstrated the old axiom that boldness on the battlefield produces swift and relatively bloodless victory. The three-week swing through Iraq has utterly shattered skeptics' complaints."
(Fox News Channel's Tony Snow, 4/27/03)

"The only people who think this wasn't a victory are Upper Westside liberals, and a few people here in Washington."
(Charles Krauthammer, Inside Washington, WUSA-TV, 4/19/03)

"We had controversial wars that divided the country. This war united the country and brought the military back."
(Newsweek's Howard Fineman--MSNBC, 5/7/03)

"We're all neo-cons now."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 4/9/03)

"The war was the hard part. The hard part was putting together a coalition, getting 300,000 troops over there and all their equipment and winning. And it gets easier. I mean, setting up a democracy is hard, but it is not as hard as winning a war."
(Fox News Channel's Fred Barnes, 4/10/03)

"Oh, it was breathtaking. I mean I was almost starting to think that we had become inured to everything that we'd seen of this war over the past three weeks; all this sort of saturation. And finally, when we saw that it was such a just true, genuine expression. It was reminiscent, I think, of the fall of the Berlin Wall. And just sort of that pure emotional expression, not choreographed, not stage-managed, the way so many things these days seem to be. Really breathtaking."
(Los Angeles Times, 7/3/04) (on the fall of Saddam's statue, which was orchestrated by US agents.)

"We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple. We're not like the Brits."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 5/1/03)

"He looked like an alternatively commander in chief, rock star, movie star, and one of the guys."
(CNN's Lou Dobbs, on Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' speech, 5/1/03)

"Why don't the damn Democrats give the president his day? He won today. He did well today."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 4/9/03)

"What's he going to talk about a year from now, the fact that the war went too well and it's over? I mean, don't these things sort of lose their--Isn't there a fresh date on some of these debate points?"
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, speaking about Howard Dean--4/9/03)

"It is amazing how thorough the victory in Iraq really was in the broadest context..... And the silence, I think, is that it's clear that nobody can do anything about it. There isn't anybody who can stop him. The Democrats can't oppose--cannot oppose him politically."
(Washington Post reporter Jeff Birnbaum-- Fox News Channel, 5/2/03)

"Now that the war in Iraq is all but over, should the people in Hollywood who opposed the president admit they were wrong?"
(Fox News Channel's Alan Colmes, 4/25/03)

"Over the next couple of weeks when we find the chemical weapons this guy was amassing, the fact that this war was attacked by the left and so the right was so vindicated, I think, really means that the left is going to have to hang its head for three or four more years."
(Fox News Channel's Dick Morris, 4/9/03)

"This has been a tough war for commentators on the American left. To hope for defeat meant cheering for Saddam Hussein. To hope for victory meant cheering for President Bush. The toppling of Mr. Hussein, or at least a statue of him, has made their arguments even harder to defend. Liberal writers for ideologically driven magazines like The Nation and for less overtly political ones like The New Yorker did not predict a defeat, but the terrible consequences many warned of have not happened. Now liberal commentators must address the victory at hand and confront an ascendant conservative juggernaut that asserts United States might can set the world right."
(New York Times reporter David Carr, 4/16/03)

"Well, the hot story of the week is victory.... The Tommy Franks-Don Rumsfeld battle plan, war plan, worked brilliantly, a three-week war with mercifully few American deaths or Iraqi civilian deaths.... There is a lot of work yet to do, but all the naysayers have been humiliated so far.... The final word on this is, hooray."
(Fox News Channel's Morton Kondracke, 4/12/03)

"Shouldn't the [Canadian] prime minister and all of us who thought the war was hasty and dangerous and wrongheaded admit that we were wrong? I mean, with the pictures of those Iraqis dancing in the streets, hauling down statues of Saddam Hussein and gushing their thanks to the Americans, isn't it clear that President Bush and Britain's Tony Blair were right all along? If we believe it's a good thing that Hussein's regime has been dismantled, aren't we hypocritical not to acknowledge Bush's superior judgment?... Why can't those of us who thought the war was a bad idea (or, at any rate, a premature one) let it go now and just join in celebrating the victory wrought by our magnificent military forces?"
(Washington Post's William Raspberry, 4/14/03)

"Sean Penn is at it again. The Hollywood star takes out a full-page ad out in the New York Times bashing George Bush. Apparently he still hasn't figured out we won the war."
(MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 5/30/03)

"This will be no war -- there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention.... The president will give an order. [The attack] will be rapid, accurate and dazzling.... It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on."
(Christopher Hitchens, in a 1/28/03 debate-- cited in the Observer, 3/30/03)

"I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to take that wager?"
(Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 1/29/03)

"It won't take weeks. You know that, professor. Our military machine will crush Iraq in a matter of days and there's no question that it will."
(Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03)

"There's no way. There's absolutely no way. They may bomb for a matter of weeks, try to soften them up as they did in Afghanistan. But once the United States and Britain unleash, it's maybe hours. They're going to fold like that."
(Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03)

"He [Saddam Hussein] actually thought that he could stop us and win the debate worldwide. But he didn't--he didn't bargain on a two- or three week war. I actually thought it would be less than two weeks."
(NBC reporter Fred Francis, Chris Matthews Show, 4/13/03)

Mara Liasson: Where there was a debate about whether or not Iraq had these weapons of mass destruction and whether we can find it...
Brit Hume: No, there wasn't. Nobody seriously argued that he didn't have them beforehand. Nobody.
(Fox News Channel, April 6, 2003)

"Speaking to the U.N. Security Council last week, Secretary of State Colin Powell made so strong a case that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is in material breach of U.N. resolutions that only the duped, the dumb and the desperate could ignore it."
(Cal Thomas, syndicated column, 2/12/03)

"Saddam could decide to take Baghdad with him. One Arab intelligence officer interviewed by Newsweek spoke of "the green mushroom" over Baghdad--the modern-day caliph bidding a grotesque bio-chem farewell to the land of the living alongside thousands of his subjects as well as his enemies. Saddam wants to be remembered. He has the means and the demonic imagination. It is up to U.S. armed forces to stop him before he can achieve notoriety for all time."
(Newsweek, 3/17/03)

"Chris, more than anything else, real vindication for the administration. One, credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Two, you know what? There were a lot of terrorists here, really bad guys. I saw them."
(MSNBC reporter Bob Arnot, 4/9/03)

"Even in the flush of triumph, doubts will be raised. Where are the supplies of germs and poison gas and plans for nukes to justify pre-emption? (Freed scientists will lead us to caches no inspectors could find.) What about remaining danger from Baathist torturers and war criminals forming pockets of resistance and plotting vengeance? (Their death wish is our command.)"
(New York Times' William Safire, 4/10/03)
--------------------------

One of the problems that extremists have nowadays is that the web caches everything forever. So when someone claims "the negativity of the media has been destroying our efforts" it's easy to look to see what they actually DID say.

[kallend 2,112]

Not fair! Next you'll be asking the neo-cons to use facts to make their case.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Bill alot of these statements are time sensitive.

[avenfoto 0]

nice post... im interested to see the responses....

let the audacity commnece

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Bill alot of these statements are time sensitive.

yes they sure are.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[rushmc 23]

Your point is? when put into the time and context these were correct. things changed as time when on and the enemy adjusted.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,080]

>when put into the time and context these were correct.

So you now admit that the media was pretty positive overall on the prospects for Iraq? In other words, they were pushing the administration's claims instead of being all negative and accurate?

Cool; I see that as progress.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Well, then, when should the anti-war people have voiced their warnings, if not before the invasion?

The pro-war people said they were all full of shit before, during, and briefly after the invasion. And they've still said the anti-war media are all lying, even after the bad stuff came true.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[rushmc 23]

why do you choose to try and twist what I say instead of have a dialog about it??

they were report what was true at the time, nothing more nothing less.

I think because of the speed things were moving they did not have much choice.

Today, they pick a choose, what supports thier agenda and what does not. big difference me thinks

My opinion

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

"bad stuff came true"?
explain that one to me.

I don't think thier perdictions were correct. I do not think they (or anybody) saw an insurgency like the one they have now coming (nor would have anybody because this has never happened before)

Let's take an example

The people will greet and cheer them in the streets.

The impression the media gives is that has not now or ever happened. But it has if you tallk to those on the ground over there.

Look, all I want out of the media is the story with as little angle as possible on it. I want facts not a this side or this side type of analyisis. As a matter of fact, i don't want any media's analyisis, just the facts.

that is not what we are getting today. Hell, just look at the way they ask the quesition. Pure disrespect and leading type BS questions

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[brierebecca 0]

Quote

things changed as time when on and the enemy adjusted.

That was awesome.

Brie

"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

[wmw999 2,550]

There were a lot of people who were saying that an insurgency was likely, including ones here on dz.com. The fact that there were people who cheered the Americans doesn't lessen the severity of the insurgency.

There were a lot of predictions of "easy" ahead of time, and a lot of people (mostly liberals) who disagreed with that.

There was a lot of talking about "weapons of mass destruction" at the time as the justification for going to Iraq (it was the reason for all those UN sanctions -- the ones that we used, in part, as our justification for a preemptive strike). We have not found the kinds of weapons of mass destruction, or the evidence thereof, that would justify a strike in 2003.

There might have been weapons in the past, but they're not there now and weren't there in 2003. We spent enough damn time looking for them.

So you have to let the people who said this was a likely outcome crow every now and then. Especially when so many of the news clips are about the "rightful" crowing of the pro-war folks.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,080]

>they were report what was true at the time, nothing more nothing less.

So even though what they said did NOT come true, since it was a pro-right-wing stance, it was true? Now everything points to a civil war - but saying THAT is untrue and biased, because it's a pro-left-wing stance?

Again, the reality-based community is seeing this stuff too, and drawing their own conclusions - that the press has not been any more liberal than any sane person, and that the right wing needs desperately to blame their massive failure in Iraq on something, anything. And thus they blame the thing that has been the conduit for what's happening in Iraq - the media. Cast suspicion on them, and the public might believe all the happy talk coming from Washington. And that would give Bush a desperately needed boost in the polls.

On the plus side, at least you're not blaming it on negative brainwaves.

[billvon 3,080]

>Look, all I want out of the media is the story with as little angle as possible on it.

Then listen to NPR. They lean towards getting someone on the air (Iraqis, marines, contractors in Iraq) and just letting them talk. I prefer it to listening to commentators talk about issues.

(I actually have no illusions that you will ever do this; just presenting it as an option.)

[rushmc 23]

No, I have not said it was true. But what you point out here is no different than the WMD argument. Everybody thought SH had or had the ability to get WMDs' (for the most part) Bush and the media was saying the same thing why?

Because they thought it was true

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

I have listened to NPR off and on for years. At one time where I lived (northwest Iowa) that was about all you could get besides farm news and music.

NPR was then (but I did not know it) and is now a left tilted joke.

some of the show have good and bad shows like "All Things Considered"

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,080]

So to summarize (feel free to disagree, I certainly don't want to 'twist your words')

Media reporting (inaccurately, as it turns out) that the war is over, critics were all wrong, WMD's will be found, it will be clear sailing from here on out - this is an example of simply reporting what is true.

Media accurately predicting that there will be civil strife, massive casualties, sectarian violence, no WMD's, that the war will cost hundreds of billions and take years - this is the lying liberal media picking and choosing things to further their agenda.

Is that a fair statement of your position?

[Zenister 0]

Quote

"bad stuff came true"?
explain that one to me.

I don't think thier perdictions were correct. I do not think they (or anybody) saw an insurgency like the one they have now coming (nor would have anybody because this has never happened before)

does it take along time to get the sand out?

those with longer memories might recall a SME (look it up) in a position of authority who predicted EXACTLY this.. and laid out in no uncertain terms the nessesary military commitment required to prevent it and attempt to accomplish the stated objective BEFORE invasion...

guess what? his expertise and professional opinion was publicly belittled and ignored (by those clearly lacking expertise or experience) and then he was fired...

LOTS of people saw this coming....and were all summarily ignored because they would not support a POLITICAL objective by ignoring military and social/enviromental facts......

but saying "we told you so" doesnt bring anyone back, or do anything to change the course set by incompetent leadership.......

first step in fixing a problem is to admit you made an error... we have yet to make the first step...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[kallend 2,112]

Quote

No, I have not said it was true. But what you point out here is no different than the WMD argument. Everybody thought SH had or had the ability to get WMDs' (for the most part) Bush and the media was saying the same thing why?

Because they thought it was true

Not me, buddy. I'm on record here on DZ.com in Feb 2003 as saying I thought the "evidence" presented was flimsy. Got a lot of jeers from the right for that.

And also I'm on record as predicting that Bush & Rummy's Not-so-Excellent Misadventure would become a quagmire. Got a lot of jeers from the right for that too.

Cassandra.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

A new low even for you, Bill.

From the Pew Research Center:

Quote

# "Efforts to establish a stable democracy:"
Will succeed:
Public 56%
Media: 33%

Will fail:
Public: 37%
News media: 63%

# "Decision to take military action" Public:
Public: "right decision" 48%, "wrong decision" 45%
News media: "right decision" 28%, "wrong decision" 71%

# "Iraq's impact on war on terrorism" Public:
Public: "helped" 44%, "hurt" 44%
News media: "helped" 22%, "hurt" 68%

# "Is torture of terrorist suspects justified?" Combining "often" and "sometimes," vs. "rarely" and "never"
Public: 46% yes, 49% no
News media: 21% yes, 78% no

# "Restrictions on student visas" Public:
Public: "worth it to prevent terrorism" 71%, "loses too many good students" 20%
News media: "worth it to prevent terrorism" 39%, "loses too many good students" 56%

# "Reducing illegal immigration" News Media:
News Media: 17% "top priority," 69% "some priority" (86%)
General Public 51% "top priority," 39% "some priority" (90%)

# Bush job approval:
August 2001:
Public: 51%
News media: 40%

October 2005:
Public: 40%
News media: 21%

[Gravitymaster 0]

Hope you don't mind if I form my opinions based on information from those who have actually been to Iraq and seen what's going on first hand, as opposed to what others read in the morning newspapers and internet blogs.

Quote

Myths of Iraq
By Ralph Peters

During a recent visit to Baghdad, I saw an enormous failure. On the part of our media. The reality in the streets, day after day, bore little resemblance to the sensational claims of civil war and disaster in the headlines.

No one with first-hand experience of Iraq would claim the country's in rosy condition, but the situation on the ground is considerably more promising than the American public has been led to believe. Lurid exaggerations and instant myths obscure real, if difficult, progress.

I left Baghdad more optimistic than I was before this visit. While cynicism, political bias and the pressure of a 24/7 news cycle accelerate a race to the bottom in reporting, there are good reasons to be soberly hopeful about Iraq's future.

Much could still go wrong. The Arab genius for failure could still spoil everything. We've made grave mistakes. Still, it's difficult to understand how any first-hand observer could declare that Iraq's been irrevocably "lost."

Consider just a few of the inaccuracies served up by the media:

Claims of civil war. In the wake of the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, a flurry of sectarian attacks inspired wild media claims of a collapse into civil war. It didn't happen. Driving and walking the streets of Baghdad, I found children playing and, in most neighborhoods, business as usual. Iraq can be deadly, but, more often, it's just dreary.

Iraqi disunity. Factional differences are real, but overblown in the reporting. Few Iraqis support calls for religious violence. After the Samarra bombing, only rogue militias and criminals responded to the demagogues' calls for vengeance. Iraqis refused to play along, staging an unrecognized triumph of passive resistance.

Expanding terrorism. On the contrary, foreign terrorists, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, have lost ground. They've alienated Iraqis of every stripe. Iraqis regard the foreigners as murderers, wreckers and blasphemers, and they want them gone. The Samarra attack may, indeed, have been a tipping point--against the terrorists.

Hatred of the U.S. military. If anything surprised me in the streets of Baghdad, it was the surge in the popularity of U.S. troops among both Shias and Sunnis. In one slum, amid friendly adult waves, children and teenagers cheered a U.S. Army patrol as we passed. Instead of being viewed as occupiers, we're increasingly seen as impartial and well-intentioned.

The appeal of the religious militias. They're viewed as mafias. Iraqis want them disarmed and disbanded. Just ask the average citizen.

The failure of the Iraqi army. Instead, the past month saw a major milestone in the maturation of Iraq's military. During the mini-crisis that followed the Samarra bombing, the Iraqi army put over 100,000 soldiers into the country's streets. They defused budding confrontations and calmed the situation without killing a single civilian. And Iraqis were proud to have their own army protecting them. The Iraqi army's morale soared as a result of its success.

Reconstruction efforts have failed. Just not true. The American goal was never to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure in its entirety. Iraqis have to do that. Meanwhile, slum-dwellers utterly neglected by Saddam Hussein's regime are getting running water and sewage systems for the first time. The Baathist regime left the country in a desolate state while Saddam built palaces. The squalor has to be seen to be believed. But the hopeless now have hope.

The electricity system is worse than before the war. Untrue again. The condition of the electric grid under the old regime was appalling. Yet, despite insurgent attacks, the newly revamped system produced 5,300 megawatts last summer--a full thousand megawatts more than the peak under Saddam Hussein. Shortages continue because demand soared--newly free Iraqis went on a buying spree, filling their homes with air conditioners, appliances and the new national symbol, the satellite dish. Nonetheless, satellite photos taken during the hours of darkness show Baghdad as bright as Damascus.

Plenty of serious problems remain in Iraq, from bloodthirsty terrorism to the unreliability of the police. Iran and Syria indulge in deadly mischief. The infrastructure lags generations behind the country's needs. Corruption is widespread. Tribal culture is pernicious. Women’s rights are threatened. And there's no shortage of trouble-making demagogues.

Nonetheless, the real story of the civil-war-that-wasn't is one of the dog that didn't bark. Iraqis resisted the summons to retributive violence. Mundane life prevailed. After a day and a half of squabbling, the political factions returned to the negotiating table. Iraqis increasingly take responsibility for their own security, easing the burden on U.S. forces. And the people of Iraq want peace, not a reign of terror.

But the foreign media have become a destructive factor, extrapolating daily crises from minor incidents. Part of this is ignorance. Some of it is willful. None of it is helpful.

The dangerous nature of journalism in Iraq has created a new phenomenon, the all-powerful local stringer. Unwilling to stray too far from secure facilities and their bodyguards, reporters rely heavily on Iraqi assistance in gathering news. And Iraqi stringers, some of whom have their own political agendas, long ago figured out that Americans prefer bad news to good news. The Iraqi leg-men earn blood money for unbalanced, often-hysterical claims, while the Journalism 101 rule of seeking confirmation from a second source has been discarded in the pathetic race for headlines.

To enhance their own indispensability, Iraqi stringers exaggerate the danger to Western journalists (which is real enough, but need not paralyze a determined reporter). Dependence on the unverified reports of local hires has become the dirty secret of semi-celebrity journalism in Iraq as Western journalists succumb to a version of Stockholm Syndrome in which they convince themselves that their Iraqi sources and stringers are exceptions to every failing and foible in the Middle East. The mindset resembles the old colonialist conviction that, while other "boys" might lie and steal, our house-boy's a faithful servant.

The result is that we're being told what Iraqi stringers know they can sell and what distant editors crave, not what's actually happening.

While there are and have been any number of courageous, ethical journalists reporting from Iraq, others know little more of the reality of the streets than you do. They report what they are told by others, not what they have seen themselves. The result is a distorted, unfair and disheartening picture of a country struggling to rise above its miserable history.

Ralph Peters is a retired U.S. Army officer.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

>Look, all I want out of the media is the story with as little angle as possible on it.

Then listen to NPR. They lean towards getting someone on the air (Iraqis, marines, contractors in Iraq) and just letting them talk. I prefer it to listening to commentators talk about issues.

(I actually have no illusions that you will ever do this; just presenting it as an option.)

I listen to plenty of NPR.

I heard a story on NPR back in December that was an interview of a soldier that had recently returned from Iraq. The correspondent started the story introduction by ominously saying that the soldier "still could not see the light at the end of the tunnel". A little later the interview actually started. I expected to hear an obviously liberal leaning soldier stating his objections to the war/policy. I was surprised to hear his story of support for the war, and inspiring stories of how things are improving so much. There wasn't anything at all about "no light at the end of the tunnel". The headline/intro was completely out of step.

News reporting suffers from bias.
NPR/PBS is biased.
CNN is biased.
BBC is biased.
Fox News is biased...

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[CDRINF 1]

I just got back from Iraq and I had no idea we were losing the war until I came home and started watching the news.

Much of the reporting and almost all of the commentary bears no relation to the reality on the ground. Then we get gloom and doom stories about American public opinion from polls where people are influenced by the same reporting.

I have always respected the roll of the press in our society, but now I am beginning to think that either they are very lazy, or flat making stuff up. I figured out it was combination of both. Here's how: I never saw a reporter my entire time in Iraq. Then I noticed something. Take a look at the articles from major papers supposedly written by their "Senior correspondent in Baghdad." At the bottom of the article you often see the notation "This article prepared with assistance by" and then a string of Arabic names. The western reporters are staying in their hotels, and hiring Iraqi stringers to bring them information. Now, if I learned anything working with the Iraqi Army, it is that Iraqis live by rumor, love to exaggerate, and take everything at face value. They have also probably figured out that the juicier the story, the more they get paid. Remember the banner headlines about 1300 bodies in the Baghdad morgue a few weeks ago? Notice how quickly those stories disappeared? It simply was not true. The story served it's purpose, however. They got the banner headline, sold some more papers, and the reporter got kudos from his bosses for his "scoop."

So, it ain't about bias, it's about sloppy reporting and going for the sensational to make a quick buck.

CDR

[mnealtx 0]

Agreed - as attributed to Mr. Peters a couple of posts up:

Quote

Race to the bottom

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gravitymaster 0]

It appears the Lefties are just victims of "bad Intel", eh?

Perhaps it is they who need the tin foil hats to filter out the negative bullshit.

Thanks for your service Mike, you too CDRINE.


-