Other news media issues
related to the War on Terrorism

Editor's Note:  In addition to the Suppressed War News, there are many examples of news coverage which seem to contain leftist bias.  You might also enjoy The Media Bias Page, where there is a lot more material of this sort.

Please note that there is now a separate page for material related to The New York Times, and its openly liberal, anti-war, anti-Bush editorial slant.



Former prisoners sue architects of CIA's brutal interrogation program.  Two former CIA prisoners and the family of another detainee who froze to death at a secret prison in Afghanistan have sued the architects of the spy agency's detention and interrogation program.  The lawsuit was filed Tuesday [10/13/2015] in federal court in Spokane, Wash., against James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, a pair of psychologists who earned millions using untested, brutal techniques, such as waterboarding, on CIA prisoners.

The Editor says...
In times of war, sometimes bad things happen to bad people, but we are not the brutal ones.

The Pentagon's Dangerous Views on the Wartime Press.  The Defense Department earlier this summer released a comprehensive manual outlining its interpretation of the law of war.  The 1,176-page document, the first of its kind, includes guidelines on the treatment of journalists covering armed conflicts that would make their work more dangerous, cumbersome and subject to censorship.  Those should be repealed immediately.  Journalists, the manual says, are generally regarded as civilians, but may in some instances be deemed "unprivileged belligerents," a legal term that applies to fighters that are afforded fewer protections than the declared combatants in a war.  In some instances, the document says, "the relaying of information (such as providing information of immediate use in combat operations) could constitute taking a direct part in hostilities."

NY Times discovers that Saddam did have WMDs after all.  President Bush "lied" about Iraq's WMDs — thus goes the article of faith among liberals, endlessly repeated by the likes of Ron Fournier and Jon Stewart as a kind of progressive catechism.  Except that it is a libel, as even the New York Times indirectly acknowledges today.

Robert Gates protests AP decision as 'appalling'.  Defense Secretary Robert Gates is objecting "in the strongest terms" to an Associated Press decision to transmit a photograph showing a mortally wounded 21-year-old Marine in his final moments of life, calling the decision "appalling" and a breach of "common decency."

Talk about surrender.  The media took great delight in reporting the encounter between US President George W. Bush and a pair of flying shoes during his final visit to Iraq two weeks ago.  But the great bastions of free speech missed the true significance.

TV News Winds Down Operations on Iraq War.  Quietly, as the United States presidential election and its aftermath have dominated the news, America's three broadcast network news divisions have stopped sending full-time correspondents to Iraq.

Bloodless Sunday.  The successful legacy of President Bush was never in more full evidence than the Sunday press conference in Bagdad.  The obvious contrast of President Bush and President Saddam Hussein was an easy one to observe.  Under Saddam Hussein, such an incident would never have taken place because public dissent was punishable by death.

Media Giddy Over Attack on U.S. President.  The name:  Muntadhar al-Zeidi — a new hero to many in the Muslim world.  President Bush — in a surprise, end-of-term visit to Iraq — held a press conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.  Al-Zeidi, an Iraqi "reporter," shouted, "This is your farewell kiss, you dog," and threw a shoe at Bush.  The reporter quickly threw a second.  The shoes missed their target only because an agile President Bush managed to duck.  And with his typical self-deprecating humor, he later joked, "It was a size 10."

American Troops Still in Harm's Way?  When was the last time you saw American soldiers being interviewed in prime time?  When was the last time you saw wall-to-wall coverage of the NYC ticker-tape parades in our soldiers' honor?  When was the last time you heard an American newsman even acknowledge that we're still fighting (and WINNING!) a war?

Mainstream Media Ignores Major Progress In Iraq.  You may have thought it was big news Tuesday when the administration reported to Congress that Iraq has made satisfactory progress on 15 of 18 political benchmarks set by the U.S.  Just last year, there was progress on only eight of those benchmarks and war critics have repeatedly cited the lack of political progress in arguing against the troop surge.

The (Down) Beat Goes On In The Media.  Four years ago this week, we noted how negative coverage of the Iraq War had become.  But that was when things weren't going well.  This is now, when things are going much better.  So coverage must be much more positive, right?

In times of war, bad news trumps good.  Who'd have guessed that as a campaign issue, the war in Iraq is a fading third place to fears about the deteriorating U.S. economy (the loss of jobs), and anger and frustration at the horrendous price of gasoline.  The sudden drop of interest in the Iraq war is partly because it is being won, what with the celebrated "Surge" of more troops, implemented in great measure because of McCain's support.

Negative U.S. media linked to increased insurgent attacks.  Periods of intense news media coverage in the United States of criticism about the war, or of polling about public opinion on the conflict, are followed by a small but quantifiable increases in the number of attacks on civilians and U.S. forces in Iraq, according to a study by Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

Fewer U.S. Dead = Less TV Coverage of Iraq.  Attacks in Baghdad have fallen up to 80 percent in the past twelve months, Reuters reported February 16.  Deaths among Iraqi military forces and civilians have dropped by more than two-thirds, from more than 2,000 per month in early 2007 to fewer than 600 per month since November.  And U.S. military deaths have also declined, falling from 126 in May 2007 to 40 in January 2008 and just 29 so far in February, with two days left in the month.  Yet this good news seems to have diminished the media elite's interest in broadcasting any news from Iraq.

Lying About Iraq:  Those on the left have consistently ignored or downplayed the seriousness of the threat most intelligence told us Iraq posed before the war.  Even worse, they are now ignoring the progress, and in many cases downright successes, being seen in Iraq since the "surge." … Steve Schippert described the cherry-picking done by those in the American media who, instead of reporting the extent to which Saddam was involved in terrorist activity, chose to dismiss the relevance of the project's findings by summarizing "a 94 page report down to a single, unrepresentative phrase."

A Glaring Omission.  After years of telling us the war on terror was creating more terrorists, the mainstream media has mysteriously woken up to the fact that Islamic extremism is on the wane. … But there is an important omission in the sudden coverage of moderate Muslims:  No one talks about the effect of the Iraq War.  The MSM can dodge the issue all they like, but the fact remains that the Coalition's toppling of Saddam facilitated the first organized rejection of fanatical Islam in the Middle East.

Murtha Lied, Obama Sighed.  Mainstream media and liberal Democrats, if that's not redundant, are more preoccupied these days with protecting the rights of terrorists, even Osama bin Laden, to habeas corpus and other rights of U.S. citizens they were trying to kill.  That has replaced Abu Ghraib and Gitmo as their cause celebre.  Now that Haditha hasn't turned out to be the Iraqi My Lai they hoped for, they have no time for the innocent Marines, either to comment or apologize.

Calling our troops cold-blooded killers:  Not that I want to bring any attention to that loser on MSNBC, but the comments made recently by Keith Olbermann on his "Countdown" show should be addressed, if only to point out how out of control these left-wing Bush haters are.  Olbermann has engaged in vitriolic diatribes against the president before, but this time he was way over the top.

60 Minutes Up to its Old Tricks.  [Scroll down]  What fits a pattern is 60 Minutes' effort to discredit the war, the administration, and the U.S. standing around the world.  60 Minutes had a story they wanted to tell, and they were perfectly willing to leave out key facts that would clearly have influenced what people thought about this man.  They show parts of documents to the millions of viewers who watch the show each week, and leave others buried on their website for a fraction of the people to dig out the rest of story.

Associated Prevaricators:  A recent Associated Press story so thoroughly twisted the English language to present the opposite of reality, Bill Clinton might be writing its headlines. … This is not reporting:  it is news manipulation designed to massage public opinion about the war.  It is an important reminder of the ever-present filter through which Americans receive their news.

Chart
Five Years of Slant Against Iraq War Success.  Analysts at the Media Research Center have studied TV news coverage of the Iraq war from the beginning, even before the first bombs fell on Baghdad in March 2003.  The record shows the networks have trumpeted bad news — setbacks for the U.S. coalition and allegations of misdeeds by American troops — while minimizing good news such as the success of the 2007 troop surge and acts of heroism by U.S. soldiers.

Poll:  Public Distrust Media's Iraq Coverage.  Nearly half of Americans think the situation in Iraq is better than the national media are reporting, according to a recent poll, while significant majorities think the news media are damaging troop morale and prospects for victory.

Smear Campaign.  [The military recruiter's] reply was blunt — and an indictment of the so-called mainstream media:  "The press is killing us.  We have parents and high school guidance counselors telling our best prospective recruits that they have too much potential to waste it in the military.  Last year, we had to debunk myths about how the war in Iraq was being lost.  Now when we go to talk to parents, they ask us about stories they have heard about suicides, drugs — and now murders.  There is no 'good news.'  It's very discouraging."

On the Edge?  The media smears returning vets.  In the last several weeks I have learned a great deal about myself, thanks to all the wonderful media reports about serving and returning war veterans.  For example, I have learned that I might want to kill my wife because of the trauma of war. … While waiting to appear on a talk show, I learned that combat veterans are "all a little bit on the edge."

Whose Side Are They On?  From the beginning of the War on Terror, the mainstream media has been working to bring home the bad news on the war, virtually to the exclusion of any good news.  Even if they've had to fabricate it on occasion.  Do you remember the "Mai Lai Massacre of the Iraq War?"  It was a Time Magazine cover story in June of 2006.

CNN's 'journalistic freedom' is a crock of Christmas jeer.  By today's standards, CNN's broadcast of terrorists killing American soldiers is just another raised glass in honor of "cutting edge" journalism on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.  Or Nob Hill, I suppose.  Someone raised that young American boy.  And now, because of a broadcast just three days before Christmas, the images of their son alive then instantly dead are playing over and over in the minds of his parents.

The elite media's coverage of Iraq is a fiasco.  The average news consumer probably has no clue that Gen. David Petreaus' new strategy has crippled al Qaeda in Iraq, that Americans and Iraqis are now fighting side-by-side against both Sunni and Shia extremists, and that the elimination of terrorist safe havens and weapons caches has improved security for average Iraqis in parts of the country that a few months ago were snake pits.

Now that we're winning...
War in Iraq falls off media radar.  Sit through a random newscast or a half-hour of cable TV news, or listen to your favorite radio talker.  In other words, take the temperature of America via the media and identify what's missing.  Is America at war with immigrants?  Is the mortgage crisis the hottest topic in America?  Is the public transfixed by the latest candidates' debate?  Don't look now but there's a war on.

CBS Cooks the Books on Vet Suicide Numbers.  The headline is sensational:  "Suicide Epidemic Among Veterans" says CBS News. … But a deeper look at the numbers reveals something even more surprising; the suicide rate for vets is only slightly higher than it is for all males, both vet and nonvet, in the US.

The Last Talking Point of the Left.  These are important stories, and shouldn't be ignored, but it is also hard to ignore the political agenda at work here.  Individual tales of heroism don't interest papers like the [New York] Times and the [Boston] Globe; individual tragedies do.  Portraying veterans as lost souls is a narrative that is politically convenient.

The Petraeus Curve:  Is no news good news or bad news?  In Iraq, it seems good news is deemed no news.  There has been striking success in the past few months in the attempt to improve security, defeat al-Qaeda sympathisers and create the political conditions in which a settlement between the Shia and the Sunni communities can be reached.

Iraqi Casualties, Leftist Lies.  Counting bodies in Iraq has become quite the fashion these days.  Most major news organizations, from CNN to the New York Times, keep an up-to-the-minute running total of the number of U.S. troops killed there.  Critics note that if demoralization of the war effort is not the key motive then it is certainly odd that the number of dead terrorists is so rarely, if ever, provided as well.

Is the Tide Turning on Media Coverage of Iraq?.  I suppose when the New York Times has a front page story about the turnaround in the security situation in Iraq without their usual parsing and caveats, we might be able to say that press coverage of the war has turned the corner and the reality of what is happening there will be accurately reported.  But while waiting for hell to freeze over, perhaps we should begin to recognize the fact that major media outlets from the Washington Post to the Los Angeles Times as well as the cable news nets are beginning to notice that there has been a significant and definite drop in the violence in Iraq.

Homeland Security Implications of the Holy Land Foundation Trial.  Although evidence brought forward in documents and testimony has explosive implications for US Homeland Security, the intelligence community, and every American citizen, relatively little media attention has been paid to it.

That Took Forever:  Beauchamp Story Collapses.  When we started looking into Beauchamp's stories back in July, we believed that the New Republic had simply been taken in by a huckster — that despite being over-eager to publish a story that cast our troops in a negative light, TNR's editors had done so good faith, believing the stories to be true.  It is now clear that somewhere along the way, TNR stopped acting in good faith and started doing damage control.

Bombast of wrong media messages should not dispirit.  If we listen to the media, the world is anti-American because we are bullies, we waste natural resources and we expect other countries to bow to us.  Even in the U.S., we are told that the majority of us are tired of war. … Could it possibly be that the media is so biased that it can no longer discern what is true and what is desired by those in a position to possibly affect the outcome?

Our Stubborn, Defiant Media on Iraq.  For three years, President Bush has been portrayed as stubborn on Iraq, so defiant that it's disturbing, perhaps even a sign of delusional certitude.  There's a mirror image at play:  Those doing the portraying — i.e., the media — have been every bit as stubborn when it comes to their defiant insistence that everything that happens in Iraq, no matter how positive, is another peg for bad news coverage.

Media Don't Report Iraq Progress, US Official Says.  A State Department official back from her ninth deployment to Iraq said the media has not covered much of the progress in that country.

Using Iraq Deaths For Political Gain.  Would the left stoop to use war deaths to avenge Congress' condemnation of MoveOn's ad?  Someone out there is organizing a media ambush on those who blasted the ad — and using soldiers' names to do it.  Just ask Marsha Blackburn.  This week, the conservative Republican congresswoman from Tennessee was ambushed by MSNBC correspondent David Shuster, who asked if she could name the last soldier killed in Iraq in her district.

Drop Dead America.  The large majority of Americans of all ages disdain the MSMers — and many despise them for their cavalier attitudes about what to brand news and what to push into the public square.  The MSM elites are not admired or respected and certainly not trusted.  Once they leave their posts they are quickly forgotten and certainly not missed.  The contempt in which they are held by the members of the military is almost complete, and the government elites who battle or use them also sneer at their vanity and their easily played reflexes.

Disgruntled soldiers were "cherry picked".  Sean Hannity has — pardon the cliché — hit the nail on the head.  This past Sunday on his new program, Hannity's America, he took to task CBS's recent 60 Minutes piece that featured a handful of active-duty soldiers speaking out against the Iraq War.  "CBS left out several important parts of the story," said Hannity.  "The most glaring omission is that of context."

Despite negative media reports, U.S. is doing better in Iraq.  I could count on my fingers the number of positive articles that I have read from the media, reports that I have seen on TV or positive statements I have heard from the left about Iraq and our troops.

This is what a real outing looks like.  Unlike Valerie Plame, who was removed from covert duty years earlier, the subjects of the L.A. Times story, three North Carolina pilots, were recently involved in extremely sensitive covert actions flying CIA rendition flights.  The three pilots have, along with ten others, been indicted in a German court, for their involvement in the "extraordinary rendition" of Khaled Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent.

As war tanks, so do standards for news shows.  The sad irony is that cable news standards are being steadily compromised — by the quest for ratings, by permitting video to trump every lesser concern and, above all, by allowing the sensational to overwhelm the important.  And this at precisely the moment when Americans have never been more in need of in-depth, informed commentary on the great issues of our public life.

NBC's War Gambit:  NBC News made a dramatic announcement yesterday [11/27/2006]:  Effective immediately, it will call the sectarian conflict in Iraq a civil war.  And that's the way it is, as a rival network once upon a time might have put it.

The war of all against all:  A few days back, the "Today" show, speaking for NBC News, declared Iraq a "civil war," and said the network and CNBC and MSNBC would henceforth use that term to describe it.  President Bush and White House Press Secretary Tony Snow angrily objected.  A civil war, said Snow, is when two identifiable armed forces war with each other for control of a government and nation.  And Iraq is not that. … Calling it "a civil war" is a cover for people who wish to cut and run.

Chris Matthews goes scapegoating.  I listened to this barrage from Chris Matthews at the health club yesterday.  It was nauseating.  Matthews just kept peddling the line that Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby and Perle are the ones who pushed America to war.

Should the Press Cut and Run?  [The news media] create and perpetuate an image of an enemy far more clever and cunning than our own forces.  When they do occasionally report on an American success in battle, it's done in an almost ho-hum, so whaddaya expect with our overwhelming strength and technological superiority? tone.  Yet murderous attacks against hapless civilians by those with minimal fighting skills are breathlessly depicted as daring and ingenious military feats.

Goodman of Globe Recycles Iraqi Civilian Death Canard.  In the course of a Boston Globe column today in which she calls for a referendum in Iraq as to whether the US stays or goes, Ellen Goodman writes:  "Today we have nearly 3,000 American deaths, and by one estimate 650,000 Iraqi deaths."  Ever the environmentalist, Goodman is dutifully recycling the findings of a report published in the Lancet magazines on civilian deaths in Iraq.  This study, prepared by two anti-war partisans, has … been thoroughly debunked.

Who is Capt. Jamil Hussein?  Jamil Hussein was the only source for the story until Friday evening, when the AP added corroboration from Hurriyah Sunni elder Imad al-Hashimi. The next day, the AP claimed to "stand by its story," but published another version of the story, this one with far more detail and several new witnesses, all unnamed.

Update:
Jamil Hussein, Disputed AP Source, Finally Located?  Has the mysterious and much-disputed Associated Press source in Iraq, a police captain named Jamil Hussein, finally been found?  His existence has been challenged in the past three weeks from the U.S. military, some Iraqi officials and conservative bloggers in the U.S.

[How hard could it be to find a police captain, even in a war zone?]

The rumor-mongering media.  You will not read one of the most significant stories of the week out of Iraq on the front page of The New York Times.  CNN will not make it headline news.  The Associated Press has yet to touch it.  That's because the story exposes the media's own widespread malfeasance in reporting on the war on terror — and its refusal to be held accountable when challenged by "amateur" bloggers investigating fishy sources and claims recycled recklessly by "professional" journalists.

Who's soft on propaganda?  The same left-wing crowd that claims to hate propaganda seems to be offering nothing but flowers and best wishes for the November launch of al-Jazeera English.  The new network presents itself as a bold, adventurous news outlet to promote an Arab point of view, to redirect global news coverage to the point of view of the "South" — left-wing lingo for Third World monarchs and dictators.  Its sugar daddy is the emir of Qatar, seriously wealthy and very much committed to an Islamic agenda.

CNN defends Iraq footage.  CNN has detailed and defended how it came upon controversial footage of American soldiers being killed by Iraqi insurgents.  The network broadcast a segment of the video last week, which prompted American congressman to call for it to be banned from being allowed to embed with US troops in Iraq.

Midwest hotel chain drops CNN over video.  A Midwest hotel chain with several properties in Illinois has pulled CNN and CNN Headline News from its guest rooms and lobbies in response to the cable network's broadcast of an insurgent video showing Iraqi snipers shooting at U.S. troops.

Bob Schieffer's Gaffe:  Bob Schieffer is described by CBS News as "broadcast journalism's most experienced Washington reporter."  So why can't he get his facts straight?  His September 13 "Free Speech" segment on the CBS Evening News accused President Bush of operating CIA "secret prisons" when no evidence of them has been produced by anyone.

Media Blame Bush for Clinton Legacy.  Time magazine's much-publicized July 17th cover story, "The End of Cowboy Diplomacy," has been viewed as a seminal media effort to capture the transformation of the Bush Administration from a trigger-happy approach in foreign policy to reliance on other nations and the U.N.  But a careful analysis shows that Time exaggerated and distorted the facts in order to produce a story that would entice and mislead its readers.

The media keeps missing the boat on Iraq.  Liberals like to pretend that there isn't a media bias when it comes to the coverage of the Bush Administration or the war.  Despite the fact that newsrooms are filled with dyed-in-the-wool liberals, there's a preposterous attempt to portray the mainstream press as fair and objective.  Well, this week's news cycle has delivered proof that the liberal media bias is not only present, it's overwhelming.

Harris Poll:  Despite News Reports, More Americans Believe Iraq Had WMD.  Despite being widely reported in the mainstream news media that the US and other countries have not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as well as Democrat talking points that Bush lied about WMD, more Americans (50%) think that Iraq had such weapons when the US-led coalition invaded Iraq.

Sloppiness and 'Reutergate':  It is certainly true that a picture is worth a thousand words when it comes to news photographs, and it's especially true of news photographs from war zones. … Now photographers are going beyond half-truth, to manipulating images that aren't at all real.

Fauxtography:  The media scandal continues.  It's the story that the journalistic elite would rather just go away.  In the aftermath of Reuters' admission that one of its photographers, Adnan Hajj, had manipulated two war images from Lebanon after bloggers smoked out his crude Photoshop alterations and all 920 of his Reuters photos were pulled, evidence of far more troubling photo staging and media deception in the Middle East continues to pour in.

Reuters And The Cloned Blown Smoke.  As the mainstream media is so arrogant that they feel they can pull anything over anyone's eyes because they are in agreement that the public is so intellectually beneath them, it was only a matter of time before they tried to pull another fast one.

Photoshop of Horrors.  The recent discovery by the Blogosphere that Reuters had doctored a photograph taken in Beirut throws the spotlight once more on the thorny issue of ideological bias, intentional or otherwise, in the mainstream media (MSM).  By refusing to investigate the many other photos supplied by Adrian Hajj (though the news agency has withdrawn all of them) Reuters betrays two fears.  First, of exposing its reputation further and, second, facing accusations of institutional bias.

13 Reasons to vote Republican.  A journalist pointed out to President Bush at his most recent press conference that the Iraq war has now been going on as long as World War II did for the United States.  Well, yes, but we lost 407,316 men in World War II.  On Iwo Jima alone, we lost 6,800.  This is not to say that the deaths of our people in Iraq should be trivialized.  But comparisons with World War II — in terms of sacrifice and terrible price paid — are ridiculous.

Democrats and Their Press:  The press has made sure that the public right to know includes their right to know every "secret" defense initiative.  The press wants the people to know about every body bag and every set-back in the war on terror, no matter how minor.  But they do not want the people to know of all the good, or progress made in the mission.  The press wants the people to know every individual indiscretion of any American soldier.  But they do not want the people to know that 99.9% of all American troops are heroes of the finest sort.  The cost of war must be reported, but not the benefits of our mission, and we see it every day, headline after headline.

Movie shows photo fraud involved in wartime journalism.  Numerous examples of Photoshop embellishment and throw-down toys carefully arranged by news photographers to evoke emotion.

Media Manipulating the War News?  Reuters announced Sunday [8/6/2006] it was suspending its relationship with Adnan Hajj, a freelance photographer in Lebanon who had worked for the British news service since 1993, because he doctored a photograph on the aftermath of an Israeli air strike in south Beirut.

Why we don't believe you:  Does the mainstream press ever wonder why conservatives distrust them so much?  If so, they need look no further than the "fauxtography" scandals of the last couple of weeks.  Conservative bloggers have been hard at work sniffing out suspected fakery and staging in the photos sent back on the newswires from the Israel/Hezbollah conflict, and the investigation got pretty smelly.


"It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers.  In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late.  Accordingly, I am readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I will, in turn, do my best for the Cause by writing editorials — after the fact."
— Robert E. Lee, 1863.  



Media Caught Lying About "Secret Prisons".  type in the words "secret prisons" in the Google search engine for current news and see how many hits you get in connection with the Bush speech.  Some say Bush "admitted" or "confirmed" the existence of "secret prisons."  But notice that Bush's acknowledgement, admission, or confirmation is never presented in quotation marks.  That's the tip-off that he didn't say what the media claim he said.  Our media lied.

The Red Cross Ambulance Incident:  On the night of July 23, 2006, an Israeli aircraft intentionally fired missiles at and struck two Lebanese Red Cross ambulances performing rescue operations, causing huge explosions that injured everyone inside the vehicles.  Or so says the global media, including Time magazine, the BBC, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and thousands of other outlets around the world.  If true, the incident would have been an egregious and indefensible violation of the Geneva Convention, and would constitute a war crime committed by the state of Israel.  But there's one problem:  It never happened.

Speaking of ambulances...
No more ambulances for terror.  I remind you again of CNN's Anderson Cooper's description last month of Hizballah's ruse: "…One by one, they told the ambulances to turn on their sirens and to zoom off, and people taking that picture would be reporting, I guess, the idea that these ambulances were zooming off to treat civilian casualties, when in fact, these ambulances were literally going back and forth down the street just for people to take pictures of them."

The great American media war.  I believe there will be more blood in American streets if the government eases up on aggressively pursuing the terror killers.  But the anti-Bush media doesn't believe that, and some are putting forth that the president's policies are the primary threat to this country, not the killers themselves.  I think that's downright dangerous.

The Media vs. The War on Terror.  In the five years since al-Qaeda terrorists killed nearly 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, both international critics and domestic groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union have suggested that the American government's tactics in the War on Terror are as frightening as terrorism itself.  These mostly liberal critics portray the Bush administration as trampling on the civil rights of ordinary Americans, abusing the human rights of captured terrorists and acting without regard to the rule of law.  Unfortunately, the broadcast networks are using this Bush-bashing spin as the starting point for much of their coverage of the War on Terror.

Captured document shows AP employee spied for Saddam.

The drips who leak:  [Mary] McCarthy's firing confirmed what many conservatives have long believed:  Leftovers from the Clinton years have been doing their undercover best to commandeer foreign policy from the White House.  Now McCarthy has been exposed, along with her collaboration with [the Washington Post's Dana] Priest.

Osama's Congressman:  In 1998, Osama bin Laden boasted to ABC's John Miller:  "America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order.  After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers."  Miller, in turn, told Osama, "You are like the Middle East version of Teddy Roosevelt."  (But there's no media bias.  And please, don't question his patriotism.)

'Atrocity':  At 7:30 a.m. EST on June 8, the masters of American media paused their drumbeat of negativity from the Global War on Terror just long enough to announce that U.S. Special Operations Forces had killed Zarqawi.  The barons of bombast allowed President George W. Bush a few minutes of air-time to commend our troops and note that they had administered "a severe blow to Al Qaeda."  Then it was business as usual, bashing the administration, trashing our troops, and making sure that the words "Haditha" and "atrocity" are firmly branded in the minds of everyone with access to American media.

MSM never tires of antiwar propaganda.  With the mainstream media's co-conspiratorial role in highlighting the bad news, suppressing the good news and repeating the Democrats' propaganda, it's no wonder a large chunk of the American people have bought into the Democrats' revisionist history of the Iraq War.

The Haditha Story:  Propelled by their most irresponsible war critics, the left will try use Haditha as it used My Lai thirty years ago:  as a political tool to take apart America's support for the war and to shatter the legitimacy of our cause and the morale of our troops.

Haditha:  Is McGirk the New Mary Mapes?  Evidence accumulates of a hoax in Haditha.  The weblog Sweetness & Light has done an estimable service gathering together the articles which cast substantial doubt on the charge of a massacre of civilians at Haditha.  Because the blog is too busy gathering and fisking the news, I offered and the publisher accepted my offer to put what he has uncovered in a narrative form.

Haditha:  The Left's Big Push to Destroy Our Effort to Win the War.  This Haditha story, this Haditha incident, whatever, this is it folks, this is the final big push on behalf of the Democratic Party, the American left, and the Drive-By Media to destroy our effort to win the war in Iraq.  That's what Haditha represents — and they are going about it gleefully.

Time Magazine Massacres the Truth.  Time magazine's story of an alleged Marine massacre in Haditha, Iraq, has been falling apart.  Thanks to Time and Rep. John Murtha, the name "Haditha" has gained signature status as an American atrocity, even though the facts are not in.  Haditha has even been compared to the My Lai massacre, in which U.S. forces killed a group of Vietnamese, during the Vietnam War.  But as a media story, "Haditha" is beginning to look more like Operation Tailwind, a story that sounded sensational and damaging to U.S. forces before it was exposed as a fraud.  The Haditha massacre story could turn out to be as phony as the Bush National Guard documents that scandalized CBS News.

Under US noses, brutal insurgents rule Sunni citadel.  There is no fighting here because there is no one to challenge the Islamists.  The police station and municipal offices were destroyed last year and US marines make only fleeting visits every few months.

Media dance macabre:  The Marine incident, and its aftermath, at Haditha tells us much more about the media than it does about the Marines.  And what it tells us ought to outrage us to the core.  On every radio and television show I appeared on last week (and all I observed) in which this topic came up, without exception at least one of the media people immediately attempted to implicate not just the still-presumed-innocent Marines, but the American military's leadership and methods in general.

TIME Magazine backpedals
Setting the record straight on Haditha.  The mainstream media spent a couple of weeks throwing around the "cold blood" and "maybe murder" stories.  Now that they're backtracking, it's our job to make sure new corrections and less damning facts don't get lost in the corner of page two.

The real Iraq.  The Pentagon has concluded its investigation into the March 15 deaths of 13 Iraqis in the town of Ishaqi.  It found that American soldiers acted within the rules of combat when they fired on a house after first being fired upon by a suspected al-Qaida operative.  The investigation of a Nov. 19 incident in Haditha in which 24 Iraqi civilians were killed continues, though some people have already rushed to judgment and convicted a group of U.S. Marines.

Update:
Haditha:  No Massacre, No Cover-Up.  On Wednesday [6/4/2008], a jury found Lieutenant Andrew Grayson "not guilty" of covering up the (un)massacre at Haditha.  The 27-year-old had been accused of multiple counts of making false official statements and one count of attempting to deceive by making false statements.  A charge of "obstruction of justice" had been thrown out the day before.  More than simply another exoneration of those accused of wrongdoing in Haditha — the sixth of eight accused — this verdict will go a long way to redefining Haditha and refuting those who insist on slurring "baby-killer" Marines and the United States herself.

Another Marine 'Murderer' Goes Free; No Apologies From Murtha Or Media.  1st Lt. Andrew Grayson stood up in a military court Wednesday [6/4/2008] to hear the words he's wanted to hear since 2006:  not guilty.  Sweet vindication for a man who was all but convicted by the media for a noncrime.  Grayson was one of several U.S. soldiers who, according to Time Magazine, went on a shooting rampage in the Iraqi town of Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005, killing 24 civilians in retribution for the roadside bombing death of Marine Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas.

Defeating Terror:  With the formation of Iraq's new government, it's a good time to take stock of where we stand in our confrontation with Islamist terror.  You wouldn't know it from the outrageously dishonest headlines, but we're winning.

Media Create Civil War in Iraq.  On February 25, at a press conference aimed at correcting "media exaggerations," the military released the preliminary results of ground and aerial surveillance that found that just 22 mosques had been attacked [in a country that has thousands of mosques], that only six sustained significant damage and that only two were destroyed completely, figures much lower than those the media repeatedly reported in the days after the attacks.

No American Gulags.  Reports of secret CIA prisons in Europe where the Bush and Blair governments tortured suspected terrorists caused quite an uproar.  But what if those prisons never existed?  Would The Washington Post and reporter Dana Priest return the Pulitzer Prize that was awarded just last week for the Post's coverage of those prisons?  Not likely.  They'd be far more likely to employ the Dan Rather/CBS fake-but-accurate defense.

The Secret War Against President Bush.  On Friday [4/24/2006], the CIA busted one of its own and charged him — or her — with leaking classified information.  While this guy or gal goes to jail, over at The Washington Post, reporter Dana Priest is still admiring the brand new Pulitzer Prize sitting on her mantle, for writing about what this very leaker told her:  the secret prison story.

Fitzgerald Retreats on a Claim Critics Had Used Against Bush.  In a startling move, a special prosecutor investigating the leak of a CIA operative's identity retreated yesterday [4/11/2006] from an assertion that news outlets and critics of the administration seized on as evidence that President Bush and Vice President Cheney deliberately distorted a crucial intelligence summary on Iraq.

Fighting the "other war".  Every war and its aftermath is fought on two fronts.  One front is where human life is destroyed by shot and shell, but the battlefield is not always where the winners and losers are determined.  The other front belongs to reporters, photographers and pundits, who wage war with words and images.  Through observation, selection and interpretation, the will of the people is wrought.

The press and the war.  Perhaps the most dubious cliche in American history is the one intoned over and again after terrorists killed 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001.  That was the cliche that claimed that now "America has changed forever."  Well, forever lasted about two years, maybe three.  Then American solidarity in the war against terror began to fissure, and, by the way, the president's favorable ratings began to sink.

The media war on terror:  Consider that the violent extremists have their own "media relations committees" aimed at manipulating elite opinion.  They plan and design headline-grabbing attacks using every means of communications to intimidate and break the collective will of free people.

Liberal TV pundits vs. history.  To mark the third anniversary of launching the war to depose Saddam Hussein, the manufacturers of the "news" have established their usual template, Realistic Media vs. Pollyanna Bush.  It's not pessimism versus optimism, but reality versus hallucination.

The media's war.  The media seem to have come up with a formula that would make any war in history unwinnable and unbearable:  They simply emphasize the enemy's victories and our losses.  Losses suffered by the enemy are not news, no matter how large, how persistent, or how clearly they indicate the enemy's declining strength.

Responsible or irresponsible reporting?  When it comes to writing about war and military operations, we have to strike a balance between what we owe the news-consuming general public and what we owe our soldiers in the field.

AP's Bush 'Straw Man' Story: News Analysis Or Unlabeled Opinion?  Did a recent Associated Press story examining President George Bush's alleged tendency to use a "straw man" approach in his speeches cross the line from news to biased opinion?  Or was it just a long-overdue, in-depth review of the president's public speaking approach?

Some reporters consider a scoop to be more important than the welfare of our country.
Leaky Double Standard:  The U.S. is in a kind of arms race with al Qaeda.  They innovate in their methods and we try to innovate in ours, but without revealing too much so the terrorists can't adjust in turn.  The advantage our enemies have is that eventually some reporter is always going to give them a heads-up.

The Truth About the Lies About Iraq.  There is no justification for breaking the law against revealing secret CIA employees but no one has been charged with any such violations.  The charges brought against Libby all relate to different recollections of the facts in the case.  Libby's memory is pitted against those of members of the Washington press corps.  The media want to believe themselves.

Looking past the body-count numbers.  Thucydides, the renowned historian of the war between Athens and Sparta, warned us long ago that "little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand."  It is no easy task to avoid adopting that vulgar simplicity while watching the seemingly endless bombings in Iraq.  My resolution attempts to focus my attention; in part I do this to honor the sacrifice of the fallen, but also to discern meaning from the endless flurry of the 24-hour news cycle.

The pen and the sword.  War reporting is an inherently dangerous business. … But this war cannot be properly covered from the balconies of hotels in the "Green Zone" or by regurgitating press releases prepared by overworked public affairs officers.

TV's Bad News Brigade:  Defeatist Coverage of the War in Iraq.  Are network reporters giving the public an inordinately gloomy portrait of the situation, as some critics charge?  Are the positive accomplishments of U.S. soldiers and Iraq's new democratic leaders being lost in a news agenda dominated by assassinations, car bombings and casualty reports?  The answer to both questions is:  Yes.

John Murtha, overnight American idol.  Making a mountain out of a molehill is becoming a national media specialty.  The news media ought to be awarded advanced degrees for fixing their political microscopes on whatever amoeba of a story will serve their stubborn template:  The Iraq war is hopeless; it's Vietnam in the desert.

Pushing bad news:  Cindy Sheehan was more or less a summer-long anti-Bush media construct, kept aloft by withholding the news that she regards "insurgents" in Iraq as "freedom fighters," hates her country (America "is not worth dying for") and thinks Lynne Stewart, the lawyer convicted of aiding terrorists, is a real-life Atticus Finch, the heroic attorney of "To Kill a Mockingbird."  She's a loony Michael Moore clone, protected by the media's "bereaved mom" image.

Much more about Cindy Sheehan can be found on this page.

All the news is a stage.  As they spin the Saddam trial and deride our soldiers in Iraq, the lesson is clear:  These media masters of theater are incapable of delivering real drama and good news unless they control the script.  Fortunately, you control the remote.

How the Media is Fighting for Our Enemy:  The probability of our victory is influenced by the fact that President Bush must fight the war on two fronts.  The first front of the war involves defeating the Islamic radicals in combat.  The second front of the war is for "hearts and minds" and it is being fought in the media.

Whose Side Are You On?  In war, the first order of business is to know whose side you are on, and who is on yours.  In the case of the war to defeat the terrorists and establish a democratic government in Iraq, the answer is not always easy to come by.  Take the American press. …

Media Mind Control in the War on Terror.  By using graphic images, focusing only on what they want you to see and hear, shaping events by reporting only on those that fit the media's political agenda, ignoring anything that is counterproductive to their goals, they control an empire that is actually a fourth arm of government.

Saddam's Links to Al Qaeda:  It is frustrating to have to keep correcting the media.  And it is even more frustrating when national television programs deliberately distort the evidence on a matter as important as Saddam Hussein's links to Al Qaeda.  It's an old controversy but some in the media still insist on getting the facts wrong.

Can Democracy in Iraq Survive Our Media?  As Iraq moves toward a referendum on its draft constitution on October 15, the debate rages on, with some elements of our liberal media doing their best to undermine the positive achievements of the Iraqi people.

Whitewashing the colorful fringe.  One potentially big story was the most recent left-wing march on Washington to protest the Iraq war, which was reduced to snippets on some network shows.  But the nation's biggest newspapers, with ample space to fill, were there.  And based on their stories, it was hard to tell whether they were covering it — or sponsoring it.

Iraq's good news chronicle.  The first installment appeared on May 19, 2004. Headlined "Good news from Iraq — bet you didn't know there was any," it offered a respite from the grim litany of insurgent violence, Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse, and coalition casualties that the mainstream media's coverage of the war tends to dwell on.

Bochco's Botched and Biased "Over There".  "Peace at any price" purveyors are going gaga over the new FX Channel series "depicting" the Iraq war, "Over There," produced by Steven Bochco of Hill Street Blues fame.

BBC edits out the word "terrorist".  The BBC has re-edited some of its coverage of the London Underground and bus bombings to avoid labelling the perpetrators as "terrorists", it was disclosed yesterday.  Early reporting of the attacks on the BBC's website spoke of terrorists but the same coverage was changed to describe the attackers simply as "bombers".

The bomb-go-boom networks:  My son's friend Todd Jones just returned from a tour of duty in Iraq.  At a celebratory gathering at his parents' home, we chatted a while, and I asked him what he thought were the biggest problems facing the military.  Without hesitating, he shot back:  "The terrorists and the media."

Playing with the numbers:  A UPI story a few months back reported that nearly 300,000 veterans are homeless on any given night.  If so, as blogger Megan McArdle pointed out a few weeks ago on Asymmetrical Information, that would mean that every single homeless person in America must have served in the armed forces, since 300,000 is about the total number of the homeless.

Is Bill Maher the Jane Fonda of the Iraq War?  I don't watch the Bill Maher show on HBO.  I haven't thought much about him since he had a show on ABC and implied that the 9/11 attackers were courageous for flying hijacked planes into buildings and killing 3,000 people.  At the same time, Maher said that the U.S. was cowardly for attacking terrorist bases in Afghanistan by launching cruise missiles from ships at sea.  He is supposed to be a comedian but also tries to come across as someone who makes serious and thoughtful points about political issues.

Hollywood's New War Effort:  Terrorism Chic.  Slow to awaken after the 9/11 attacks, Hollywood has finally come around to contributing what it can in the War on Terror:  namely, glossy, star-studded movies that sympathize with the enemy.

Newsweek and the rioters:  While American news media were just as interested in scoops in 1944 as they are now, they also had a belief that when America was at war, publishing information injurious to America and especially to its troops was unthinkable.  Such a value is not only not honored by today's news media, the opposite is more likely the case.

Dead Wrong.  Newsweek yesterday [5/16/2005] abruptly retracted its collapsing claim that GIs flushed a Koran down the toilet, after the magazine got blasted by the White House — and sparked riots that killed at least 17 in the Muslim world.

Here come the lawyers.  Yes, there is farce surrounding the arrival of American lawyers at Gitmo to assist these savage men whose favorite pastime is murder.  The detainees are not soldiers, conventionally understood.  They are among the most dangerous people on earth.

Gitmo Grovel:  Enough Already.  The self-flagellation over reports of abuse at Guantanamo Bay has turned into a full-scale panic.  There are calls for the United States, with all this worldwide publicity, to simply shut the place down.  A terrible idea.  One does not run and hide simply because allegations have been made.

It's not just Newsweek.  If you want to hear an earful, ask an American soldier how he feels about our news media.  You will invariably hear an outpouring of dismay and outrage over antagonistic and reckless reporting.

Unanswered questions about Newsweek's false story:  Newsweek's retraction of its false Quran-down-the-toilet story still leaves at least 16 dead and at least that many unanswered questions.

Caution:  Muslims easily inflamed.  Absent from this blame exchange is any recognition that many Muslims can be incited to violence by anything or nothing.  It's as if they live poised for outrage.

The news about Newsweek:  Plenty of Americans no longer regard the media as automatically, reflexively, on America's side in foreign contests.  Where's the quaint presumption nowadays that the people who tell the stories, and those who view or read them, share an interest in their country's success?

All but won.  Those who get their news from the "mainstream" media are surprised by developments in Iraq, as they were surprised by our swift victory in Afghanistan, the sudden fall of Saddam Hussein, the success of the Afghan election and the success of the Iraqi election.  Journalists demand accountability from political leaders for "quagmires" which exist chiefly in the imagination of journalists.  But when will journalists be held to account for getting every major development in the war on terror wrong?

A delicate whitewash:  Do the U.S. networks know the terms of the relationship that Al-Jazeera has with the terrorists?  Do they want to know?  To date, the answer is a morally reprehensible no.  But see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil monkeys aren't the best role models for journalists.

Media Take ACLU Line on Islamic Conference.  Some writers and commentators, such as Daniel Pipes, a specialist on Islam, hailed the U.S. government for stopping the participants in the ["Reviving the Islamic Spirit"] conference from entering the U.S.  He said it was a matter of national security and protection of the homeland.  Controlling the border flow, he said, is absolutely necessary and of "paramount importance."  But such views were not highlighted or even mentioned in the media coverage of the controversy.

Rumsfeld gets pranked.  Young students in journalism school ought to be taught that "by their stories, you shall know them."  The media reveal their opinions about the world not only in their endless pontificating verbiage, but in the topics they choose.  The "news" becomes whatever floats their boat, whatever they urgently want the people to know.

Rumsfeld, U.S. manning levels and post-election security.  Here's what a first sergeant who was there says about Rumsfeld's recent visit to Iraq. … "He was applauded, he was given a standing ovation, and he was loved.  He stood there like a professional, like a man, and he took the heat because that's what leaders do.  And yet somehow, the American media turned that wonderful event into a 'disgruntled troops meet with Secretary Rumsfeld' headline.  Incredible.  The morale is high, the equipment is good and improving daily.  Disregard what you read and hear from the media and trust in the American fighting men and women to do the right thing."

Media — covering the war, or making news?  Morale — both in the field and stateside — plays a significant role in any wartime effort.  Given that, the media's role cannot be overstated.  We expect reporters to report the news, not make it.

The Truth Trickles Out:  Unit Cited in Question to Rumsfeld Had Armor.  "It now appears that the premise of the question that caused an uproar around Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was, so to speak, off base," FNC's Brit Hume noted Tuesday night [12/21/2004] in reminding viewers how two weeks ago National Guardsman "Thomas Wilson said to Rumsfeld, quote, 'our vehicles are not armored, we do not have proper armament vehicles to carry with us north,' into Iraq."  But, Hume relayed, "according to senior Army officers, about 800 of the 830 vehicles in Wilson's Army regiment, the 278th Calvary, had already been up-armored" at the time of his widely publicized question.

Mission (will be) Accomplished.  If you read the papers or watch the news, you probably assume we're losing in Iraq, since nearly all the pictures you see from there are negative.  And sadly, some members of the media are no longer content to merely find and report bad news.  They're literally creating the news, and using our troops as props.

Reporter behind Rumsfeld grilling.  An embedded reporter from the Chattanooga Times Free Press is claiming credit for the blunt questioning yesterday [12/8/2004] of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld by American soldiers in Kuwait.

 Editor's Note:   There is a difference between a journalist and an activist.  A journalist tells the reader what's happening.  An activist makes things happen (and then reports it).  The reporter who supplied this question is evidently an anti-war activist and a troublemaker who was only there to make a name for himself.

Syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell has introduced The Joseph Goebbels award for those who entered journalism for political reasons, rather than to convey information and let the audience decide.*.

Leaving the hall of mirrors.  The newspapers played up coverage of the event to make certain that all of us knew just how awful American forces really are.  No one bothered to make mention of the fact that Marines and soldiers fighting in Fallujah had been repeatedly attacked by terrorists playing possum.  No one bothered to make mention of the numerous instances of terrorists raising the white flag of surrender only to fire at forces coming to take them into custody.

Biased coverage in Iraq:  If you trust most media accounts fed to American viewers and readers, Iraq is an unmitigated disaster.

The Wrong Words.  [There is some] confusion over what to call the combatants who continue to kill American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.  Despite their VC-like stealth, are they really "guerillas"?  Even though they appear to be rising up against a foreign "occupation," do they deserve the term "insurgents?"  Although they, and others, claim they are "resisting" the Coalition, does that make them a "Resistance?"  This is not mere semantics.  The terms the media use to report on Iraq profoundly affect how Americans perceive this conflict and, by extension, how much blood and treasure they are willing to sacrifice on behalf of the Iraqi people.

GI Jane at War:  The True Story of Women in Combat.  Women soldiers are being wounded and dying in record-breaking numbers.  Practically no one is talking about it — not the media and not even Congress.

Media pessimism loses in Iraq.  Sunday's elections in Iraq were glorious for Americans who relish the concept of freedom somewhere, anywhere in the Arab world. … While our national media were for the most part greeting these images with warm words — after all, who wants to look like they oppose elections? — this sudden bubble of idealism was in marked contrast to the daily diet of doom and dread they feed the public from Iraq.

CNN slimes our troops.  One of the most common complaints I hear from our troops is that the media rarely report on the military's good deeds.

Espionage by any other name.  Apparently, this is considered just journalistic business as usual.  The Washington political class is suffering from a bad case of creeping normalcy.  We are getting ever more used to ever more egregious government leaks of military secrets.

Beyond wishful thinking about Islam.  Now that three years and three months have passed since nearly 3,000 died on a day that will live in infamy, the hills are alive with the sound of positive musings about Islam.  Publisher's Weekly has reported that many new books on the religion are hitting the stores, with most assuring readers that Islam is a religion of peace.

War crimes?  By now, almost everyone in the world with a television has seen the videotape that appears to show a U.S. Marine shooting a wounded Iraqi terrorist inside a mosque in Fallujah.  For the record, here are the facts, because facts -- not rumors or emotions -- really are important. ... Only a few have seen the footage shot the day before -- providing irrefutable evidence that the mosque was a well-defended arms depot.  [That's a war crime.]

War without spin:  This is no "guerilla insurgency." By definition, "guerillas" or "insurgents" represent an organized political alternative to an established regime.  Radical Sunni and Shi'ite clerics like Muqtada Al-Sadr, who tortured and killed 200 men, women and children, and buried them in a mass grave in Najaf, don't promise to make things better for the Iraqi people.  Nor do the remaining Baath Party warlords or foreign extremists like Abu Musab Al Zarqawi.  These men inciting gunfights in Iraq aren't "insurgents," they are anarchists.  They offer no unified "platform" other than "jihad!"

Iraq handover and the arrogance of despair:  We live in peculiar times when good news is bad news and bad news is good.

Murder tool's extended blade:  "Reactionary" is a much more apt description for these thugs than "insurgent."  Words matter, and insistently describing the murderers in Iraq as insurgents distorts the aims and true nature of these enemies.  Saddam's old cronies and Abu Musab Zarqawi's suicide bombers don't hold elections, they don't dig sewers, and they don't build hospitals.

News Coverage as a Weapon:  The campaign in Iraq has hardly scratched American strength, which has in fact grown more potent in operational terms over the intervening period.  Nor has it materially affected the US manpower pool or slowed the American economy, which is actually growing several times faster than France, which is not militarily engaged.

They're Terrorists.  "I know it when I see it" was the famous response by a U.S. Supreme Court justice to the vexed problem of defining pornography.  Terrorism may be no less difficult to define, but the wanton killing of schoolchildren, of mourners at a funeral, or workers at their desks in skyscrapers surely fits the know-it-when-I-see-it definition.  The media, however, generally shies away from the word terrorist, preferring euphemisms.

Why News at 11 Goes Easy on Saddam:  While only the fringe denies that al Qaeda is a threat to the United States, the mainstream media are unwilling to see the danger in broader and more realistic terms.  The media seem reluctant to admit the terrorist threat involves huge swaths of contemporary Islamic civilization, including Iraq.

It's time for some rational thought in the media.  As of this week, we have an interim Iraqi government, remarkably balanced in terms of ethnicity, region and tribe.  Such encouraging developments, however, are apparently not to be permitted to puncture the current defeatism.

Tit for Tet:  Abu Ghraib is the new Tet offensive.  By lying about the Tet offensive during the Vietnam War, the media managed to persuade Americans we were losing the war, which demoralized the nation and caused us to lose the war.  And people say reporters are lazy.

Judging from Iraq, the United Nations is no solution.  Media pundits can't understand why all the negative news coming out of Iraq doesn't produce poll results that show Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., defeating President George W. Bush.  That's probably because Kerry's solution to the Iraq problem is to turn over its management to the United Nations.

Media Spins News of Iraq GI Death Toll:  Statistically you have a better chance of being shot to death in Washington, DC than in Baghdad.

Media's Selective Outrage, by the Numbers:  To the casual observer, the situation in Iraq is bleak, the Iraqi people don't really want democracy, and the only worthwhile story is the brutality and intimidation of Iraqi prisoners.  To the "casual observer" of the mainstream media, that is.

The awful news CNN had to keep to itself:  Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to keep government permission for CNN's Baghdad bureau and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders.  Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard - awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff.

A tale of two wars:  Here we are, five months after the war in Iraq began, and we haven't yet solved all of that country's problems.  Who would have thought that we would?  Apparently a significant section of the American media either thought that we would or is simply piling on the Bush administration, in hopes of bringing back the Democrats in 2004.

Arrogant media blunders:  Gulf War II will be remembered […] as having triggered another exercise in left-wing press agitation, with media armchair generalissimos making fools of themselves with one ridiculous pronouncement after another.

Some Dared Call it Treason:  In remarks ignored by the major media, Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky called for correspondent Peter Arnett to be tried as a traitor to the U.S.  "I think Mr. Arnett should be met at the border and arrested should he come back to America," he said.

Where Helen Thomas's heart lies:  Shame, shame, shame on Helen Thomas.  The crusty ex-journalist-turned-White House heckler had only one thing on her mind when her favorite news stations, al Jazeera and Iraqi state TV, repeatedly broadcast those chilling pictures of scared American POWs and gleeful Iraqi soldiers hovering over dead American soldiers….

Let the Recriminations Begin!  If the past is any indication, no one on the left is likely to own up to being so horrendously wrong about Operation Iraqi Freedom.  That's why it's up those of us who have supported the war all along to point it out for them.

CNN Exec Admits Covering Up "Maniac" Saddam's Atrocities:  Here's another fascinating item we'll dedicate to Jacques Chirac, Nancy Pelosi and the other humiliated appeasement activists:  A CNN big is admitting his network covered up the atrocities of Saddam Hussein.

Katie Couric:  "Hopefully" Saddam Made It to Syria:  Is perky "Today" show host Katie Couric actually rooting for Saddam Hussein to survive the U.S. military's repeated attempts to take him out?

Administration adults vs. media snipers:  Sorry, but I'm compelled to talk about the media war critics again.  I won't quit fairly criticizing them until they quit unfairly and dishonestly criticizing the American war effort.

The Viet Cong Admiration Society retreats.  As American servicemen swept through Iraq, securing oil fields, rescuing POWs, risking their own lives to protect Iraqi civilians, Peter Arnett went on Iraqi television — the propaganda arm of the enemy — to proclaim that the Americans' "war plan has failed."

"Mean" Songs About 9-11:  In their typical self-congratulatory fashion, the elites feel that rah-rah nationalism is unsophisticated, and that spine-tingling love of country is fool's gold for rednecks, surely to be exploited by the evil military-industrial complex.

Emotional orgies:  Civilians have rights and soldiers in uniform have rights under the Geneva Convention.  But those who infiltrate in wartime in civilian clothes, or wearing someone else's uniform, have been summarily shot for centuries.  The very fact that these cutthroats are still alive shows that they already have had better treatment than they are entitled to under international law.

Fear:  Let the Media Shut Up.  Let's fight a war, not cower in the cocoons.  If the media had paralyzed the nation with fear this way at the beginning of World War II, we'd either be speaking Japanese or German, or both.

Traitorous Media Works Leftist Agenda:  Even now, in the midst of the most vicious and horrific attack on Americans on American soil, the leftist media have shown themselves not only incapable of supporting the nation, but of actually undermining the President, with relish.  The despicable traitors have made it their mission to undercut the authority of President Bush during America's darkest hour, proving themselves even more cowardly than the terrorist murderers who are the only beneficiaries of such contemptible conduct.

The "Alleged" Attack on the World Trade Center:  If the terrorists are now "alleged," perhaps their acts were, too.  Since Reuters forbids their journalists to use "terrorist" in their reports (couldn't we construe the attackers as simply irate airline customers?) and CBS, citing allegiance to "neutrality", is mandating the T word hold hands with "alleged" or some other like qualifier, why not carry their logic into the field of actual events?  Excuse me -- "alleged" events.

The War on Terrorism and the War on Reality:  Here is the "painful" dilemma America faces:  If we don't attack Iraq, we could risk a nuclear attack on New York or Washington by Iraqi-backed terrorists.  But if we do attack Iraq, we could risk "alienating" our Arab and European allies and earning the disapproval of the "world community."  Who would regard this as a choice worth agonizing over?  Why, the American press, of course.

American journalism's true colors:  The media snobs are at it again.  Wrinkling their noses at flag pins and patriotic ribbons.  Tiptoeing around the word "terrorist."  Preening about their precious "objectivity," "neutrality" and "independence."

What's Wrong with the Media's War Coverage?:  The Left wants to complain that the military is keeping the press away from the fighting.  They're wrong.

Arafat's terrorist past:  At a press conference given on May 9, [2002] by Hasan Abdel Rahman, the chief representative of the Palestinian Authority in the U.S., a largely sympathetic group of journalists asked questions that evoked condemnation of Israel and Ariel Sharon, and none that required a defense of Yasser Arafat's record as a terrorist.  These reporters might have taken a different tack had they known more about Arafat's terrorist past.

Aldrich Fires Back at Civil Defense Critics:  A "left-leaning journalist” for the Washington Post has come under fire from a retired FBI agent for running a one-sided piece trashing the homeland defense policies of the Bush administration.  The article suggests setting terrorists free might actually help, rather than hinder America's safety.

Dan Rather Slams Top U.S. Commander as "Inaccessible":  "CBS Evening News" anchorman Dan Rather doesn't think much of the commander of the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan.  In an upcoming issue of Rolling Stone magazine, the TV news superstar complains that Gen. Tommy Franks "has been the least accessible of any U.S. commander with this many troops and this much responsibility in the history of the country.

Snapshots of the Union:  National unity holds, as it should, as it must, but cracks rend the edges.  Non-stop news cycles slice and dice through the good, the bad and the ugly with breathless delivery and the factual fidelity of infomercials.

The Phony War:  According to a breathless report in the morning news, American jets over the Taliban's front lines have engaged in "one of the fiercest bombardments yet, unleashing more than 15 bombs in the space of hours."  Get that?  A whole 15 bombs.  Within hours.  Is this a real war or a phony war?

This war of "ism" needs clarity:  In a free society with a real Constitution and sometimes over-active media, leaders know they cannot make all decisions and pursue all objectives in secret.  On the other hand, they know that the enemy as well as their fellow citizens are listening to their statements and observing their actions.

Let's roll:  All but one of the major networks neglected to air a war time speech by the president of the United States because it was during the ratings "sweeps" period.  Here is the text of that speech, delivered by President George W. Bush, November 8, 2001 at the Georgia World Congress Center in Atlanta.

The press and 9-11:  Opinion polls show the press enjoying unprecedented public approval, with ratings as high as 89 percent, in response to commendable reporting on the World Trade Center attack, U.S. military actions in Afghanistan and the ongoing specter of bio-terrorism, in which the media itself has become a sympathetic victim. But before the pile of bouquets grows too high, maybe we should stop and remove a flower or two from the stack.

Citizen Distraction:  Who's the terrorist of the day?  The US was close to a civil tax revolt against the 16th amendment to the Constitution when all this occurred.  Now who's watching taxes when anthrax is loose?  Who's watching the government land grabs now that they're watching out for a plague?  Citizen Distraction.  It's a great game of domestic subjugation of citizens while they're distracted by mass scare tactics that do not warrant all the media attention causing the scares.  And where major media is, there's something behind that curtain they don't want us to see.  It might be the UN flag.

The Media Middle:  The immediate ad hominem attacks on President Bush after the terrorist acts by Jennings of ABC, Dowd of the New York Times, Shields of PBS, Andy Rooney of CBS, etc., are typical of the America-hating establishment mainstream press.  This was a time when thousands of innocent American lives were lost in a dastardly act of war, yet these intellectually challenged media morons couldn't resist attacking their greatest conceived nemesis - a Republican president.

Bin Laden Can't Beat Us, But TV Can:  If both sides could watch a war on reasonably honest TV, there might be no more wars.  But if only the free side does so, there may be no more freedom.

Accuracy in Media:  Imagine the outcry if a newspaper editor permitted a Catholic priest to revise — before publication — a reporter's story about a pro-life rally.  Or if a columnist called in a tobacco executive to edit an article about the hazards of smoking.  Or if a publisher gave an advertiser the opportunity to rework a piece about his industry.  A loud chorus of media critics would condemn the miscreants.  The journalist would almost certainly be fired.

Media shortcomings:  On-air reporters must not only act like they know the subject matter, they must sound like they do.  Overnight they must master impossible names of cities and towns they never knew existed.  Herat, Kandahar, Mazar-i Sharif, Peshawar — before 9/11 these reporters couldn't have found these cities with laser-guided missiles.

ABC yanks Simpson for anthrax remarks:  Carole Simpson, anchor of the Sunday edition of ABC's World News Tonight, has been suspended for two weeks after speaking inaccurately at a luncheon about ABC's recent anthrax scare.  Simpson said that ABC News anchor Cokie Roberts had gotten a letter postmarked Trenton, N.J. — where several letters containing anthrax, sent to other media and to Capitol Hill, originated.  In fact, no such letter existed.

Cronkite Compares Falwell to the Terrorists:  The Rev. Jerry Falwell is in the same league as the terrorists who downed the World Trade Center and devastated the Pentagon, according to Walter Cronkite.

Vile Media Making Snide Remarks About Bush - Rather, Jennings, More:  Dan Rather, when introducing President Bush's speech, was quoted as saying, "No matter how you feel about him, he is still our president."

The eunuchs are whining:  Walter Cronkite, better known as president of the Ho Chi Minh Veneration Society, has compared the Rev. Jerry Falwell to the Taliban.  In response to Falwell's comment that gay marriage and abortion on demand may not have warmed the heart of the Almighty, Cronkite proclaimed it "the most abominable thing I've ever heard."

Aldrich Exposes Bias in Attack on Bush's Homeland Defense:  A "left-leaning journalist” for the Washington Post has come under fire from a retired FBI agent for running a one-sided piece trashing the homeland defense policies of the Bush administration.  The article suggests that setting terrorists free might actually help, rather than endanger, America's safety.

Bush's "zigzagging" of the nation on 9-11:  Pundits criticize the president for not returning to D.C. after the attack.

Hollywood's Celebrity Bush Bashers:  Speaking of embarrassments, has Alec Baldwin defected to Cuba yet?  The actor was one of dozens of celebrity blowhards who reportedly threatened to leave the country if Bush were elected.  [The first time.]

Washington Post, Jennings ABC Step Up Attack on President Bush:  Major media, including Peter Jennings' ABC News and the Washington Post have launched a full-scale spin war against President Bush.  Already, liberal media outlets have been raising questions about President Bush's taking a circuitous route back to Washington from Florida after being informed [9/11/2001] of the terrorism.

Beyond contemptible:  By all accounts, the award for the most despicable coverage goes to ABC's Peter Jennings, whose sneering and demeaning attitude towards the President were overt enough to draw the ire of many viewers, Americans who were also listeners to WBAP's talk radio.  Numerous calls flooded the local talk shows, with angry listeners vowing never to watch Jennings again.  The voices of contempt were loud and clear; average Americans will not tolerate indiscriminate bashing during a time of unbelievable crisis.

U.S. Press Ignores Israeli Hero:  Another hero in the War on Terror has been ignored. He is 46-year-old Israeli shoe salesman William Hazan. ... His name should be on every American's lips.

A Few Suggested Targets:  While Washington scurries about looking for appropriate targets for retaliation against America's enemies, I have a few suggestions for Mr. Bush about who he ought to put in the nation's cross hairs:  Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, Andrea Mitchell, the New York Times, Mary McGrory, The Washington Post and all the other Benedict Arnolds in the anti-American media rat pack mindlessly attacking President Bush.

Mike Wallace Caught in Anti-U.S. Distortion on Terrorism:  CBS's Mike Wallace has emerged as the poster boy for visiting Kuwaiti leaders disturbed about the U.S. media painting a false picture of Arab opinion of the anti-terrorist effort.  Further, these dignitaries intend to raise their concerns with the longtime "60 Minutes" newsman.

Former Director, FBI Officials Used To Broadside Bush Administration:  In what can only be described as an all-out assault on the homeland defense policies of the Bush Administration, The Washington Post published highly critical comments of six former top-level FBI officials.

After the Sept. 11 Attacks, a Chance for Smaller Government:  The media establishment is saying, over and over, that Americans love big government again.  Yet, a Gallup Poll, taken November 8 to 11, found that 89 percent of those surveyed approved of President Bush's performance in the crisis, and only 8 percent disapproved.  But for the news media, only 43 percent approved and 54 disapproved.  Hmmm.

Loose Lips in American Academia and the Press:  Professors, journalists and others who have made grossly offensive remarks in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attack are shocked that other Americans are criticizing them for it.  To them, apparently, free speech means being free of criticism by others who want to exercise their own free speech rights.

Newsweek, ABC, Newsday, Dowd Join Media's Anti-Bush Assault:  The leftist media's shocking anti-Bush hatred in the face of national tragedy continues to grow.

Stand for America, Stand With Bush!:  I am as outraged by the American media elitists — supposedly on our side — as I am by our enemies.  NewsMax has been reporting on the snide, undermining and absolutely unpatriotic comments being made by the major media as the country faces one of its worst crises ever – with even greater potential dangers looming over the horizon.

Back to The War With No Name
Back to the Media Bias Page
Back to the Home page


Custom counter developed in-house

Document location http://www.akdart.com/warpage6.html
Updated October 14, 2015.

©2015 by Andrew K. Dart