"Supporting the Troops", MSM Style

[Adam's Apple]

Deleted by Adam's Apple. Cartoon posted has changed.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Lame.

Once again, there's no media conspiracy to undermine President Bush's "noble" war effort.

Haven't you ever considered the possibility that media reports from and about Iraq are negative because negative things are happening there?

Reporters aren't making this stuff up you know. Tom Lasseter, who is an Iraq war correspondent for the NYT came to speak in my ethics class a few weeks ago. He refused to give his opinion on the politics of the war, but from what he said, Iraq is about as close to hell as you can get.

You need to be posting political cartoons making fun of war supporters for looking at the world through rose-colored glasses, not berating the media for doing their jobs.

 

[insein]

Lame.

Once again, there's no media conspiracy to undermine President Bush's "noble" war effort.

Haven't you ever considered the possibility that media reports from and about Iraq are negative because negative things are happening there?

Reporters aren't making this stuff up you know. Tom Lasseter, who is an Iraq war correspondent for the NYT came to speak in my ethics class a few weeks ago. He refused to give his opinion on the politics of the war, but from what he said, Iraq is about as close to hell as you can get.

You need to be posting political cartoons making fun of war supporters for looking at the world through rose-colored glasses, not berating the media for doing their jobs.

Actually the bulk of what they dont report is the problem. They paint a negative picture due to their LACK of reporting. Take this for example.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24171&highlight=media+bias+iraq+election

You'd do yourself some good if you actually cared about what the military and iraqis think as opposed to what the media feeds you. Then maybe you could form an honest opinion. If you still come up with the same conclusion that this war is completely wrong, then at least its an opinion formed knowing all the facts and not just the side someone wants you to hear.

 

[Avatar4321]

Reporters aren't making this stuff up you know.

I am sure Dan Rather and the reporters who have been caught making things up at the New York Times totally agree with you.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Reporters aren't making this stuff up you know. Tom Lasseter, who is an Iraq war correspondent for the NYT came to speak in my ethics class a few weeks ago. He refused to give his opinion on the politics of the war, but from what he said, Iraq is about as close to hell as you can get.

Now what you need to do is have your professor invite Senator Joe Lieberman to come address your class. He's made four trips to Iraq at different periods of time, and he has quite a different viewpoint on how things are going. It's true that Iraq is a dangerous place; afterall, there's a war going on there--or "hell" as you call it--but progress is being made, and Iraqis are a lot better off today than they were under Saddam's regime.

The sad fact is that the MSM picks and chooses what they want to report on Iraq, and we get only the picture they want us to have. How is that any different from making things up?

I personally would not believe too much having to do with politics that is printed in the NYT. The newspaper has lost all objectivity in that area. There's a good reason there are two or three different organizations in existence for the sole purpose of trying to keep the Times' reporting honest.

 

[KarlMarx]

Remember folks....

there is no such thing as a liberal bias in the media....

there is no terrorist threat....

there were no communists in high levels of government during the FDR and Truman years....

and there is no Mafia, either!!!!!!

P.S. as much as I disagree with Senator Joe Lieberman on some issues, I admire and respect him for his position on the Iraq war. There's a liberal who isn't afraid to break ranks with the DNC... and, as an Orthodox Jew, he observes his religion faithfully.... if only there were more liberals like him!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Lame.

Once again, there's no media conspiracy to undermine President Bush's "noble" war effort.

Haven't you ever considered the possibility that media reports from and about Iraq are negative because negative things are happening there?

Reporters aren't making this stuff up you know. Tom Lasseter, who is an Iraq war correspondent for the NYT came to speak in my ethics class a few weeks ago. He refused to give his opinion on the politics of the war, but from what he said, Iraq is about as close to hell as you can get.

You need to be posting political cartoons making fun of war supporters for looking at the world through rose-colored glasses, not berating the media for doing their jobs.

Have you ever considered alot of positive things are happening there.?

Of course its not a conspiracy, they didnt have to PLAN anything, its just happening.

Its really quite hilarious how the MSM anti war reporters continuously defend their actions by claiming, "we need to present a well rounded view of what is going on and make sure everything is reported no matter how ugly or unpopular"

Yet it is these same liars who refuse to print the positive things that are going on.

FACT is the elections and new Constitution of Iraq deserve as much celebration and is as newsworthy as the symbolic tearing down of the Berlin wall. Yet on the days of these occasions, often papers did not lead with these stories, instead insisting on continuing their five part story on the new fad of pink sweaters for pit bulls.

Some will argue the constitution and elections in Iraq are meaningless, but I would remind you that the actual tearing down of the Berlin wall was also meaningless, it was PURELY symbolic. It wasnt the wall that prevented Germans from crossing, it was the barbed wire, the closed gates, the bullets that would tear into Germans who tried to cross, the guards, the guns, the POLICY of the communists...their desire for power and control, and not allow liberation of children, women and peace loving men.

so it is with Iraq, the constitution, which in time may prove to be a much more formidable weapon for democracy than the Berlin wall was ever for communism, it also is a light in a darkened cavern, a way out for millions, a torch that shines the light on the evil of the terrorists, it is humanity in its highest form

and for the mass media of the west to basically ignore it is liberalism at its lowest, darkest hour. It exposes liberalism to its true god, themselves, their desire for power, their hatred of many things that are good, noble and virtuous, their own egos, NOT the liberation of women, children and peace loving men,(hmmm, sounds alot like the description of the communists) peace on earth and good will to men, not for those things that the one true GOD wishes upon us all. PEACE AND FREEDOM.



(they really need one of those smilies that shows the author of a post getting off his or her soapbox ) insert here!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I am sure Dan Rather and the reporters who have been caught making things up at the New York Times totally agree with you.

funny, witty, clever,,,, but most importantly, unlike the funny, witty, and clever stuff that comes from the left, ITS TRUE!

 

[Hagbard Celine]

I am sure Dan Rather and the reporters who have been caught making things up at the New York Times totally agree with you.

Yeah, out of the thousands of professional journalists around the globe, the three or four that were caught being unethical last year are totally representative of the MSM as a whole. I guess you'd agree that because some doctors commit malpractice, some policemen are corrupt and some business men are unethical, doctors, police and businessmen can't be trusted either. Hell, under your logic, nobody can be trusted because there are criminals in every profession!

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Have you ever considered alot of positive things are happening there.?

Of course its not a conspiracy, they didnt have to PLAN anything, its just happening.

Its really quite hilarious how the MSM anti war reporters continuously defend their actions by claiming, "we need to present a well rounded view of what is going on and make sure everything is reported no matter how ugly or unpopular"

Yet it is these same liars who refuse to print the positive things that are going on.

FACT is the elections and new Constitution of Iraq deserve as much celebration and is as newsworthy as the symbolic tearing down of the Berlin wall. Yet on the days of these occasions, often papers did not lead with these stories, instead insisting on continuing their five part story on the new fad of pink sweaters for pit bulls.

Some will argue the constitution and elections in Iraq are meaningless, but I would remind you that the actual tearing down of the Berlin wall was also meaningless, it was PURELY symbolic. It wasnt the wall that prevented Germans from crossing, it was the barbed wire, the closed gates, the bullets that would tear into Germans who tried to cross, the guards, the guns, the POLICY of the communists...their desire for power and control, and not allow liberation of children, women and peace loving men.

so it is with Iraq, the constitution, which in time may prove to be a much more formidable weapon for democracy than the Berlin wall was ever for communism, it also is a light in a darkened cavern, a way out for millions, a torch that shines the light on the evil of the terrorists, it is humanity in its highest form

and for the mass media of the west to basically ignore it is liberalism at its lowest, darkest hour. It exposes liberalism to its true god, themselves, their desire for power, their hatred of many things that are good, noble and virtuous, their own egos, NOT the liberation of women, children and peace loving men,(hmmm, sounds alot like the description of the communists) peace on earth and good will to men, not for those things that the one true GOD wishes upon us all. PEACE AND FREEDOM.



(they really need one of those smilies that shows the author of a post getting off his or her soapbox ) insert here!

Look, everybody's happy that the water is running in some places in Iraq and that a soldier handed a teddy bear to an Iraqi child and that the Kurds and Shiites and some Sunnis agreed on a tentative constitution. That's all well and good and those stories do get reported on--but none of those things overshadow the reality that people are still being blown into smitherines and that the Sunni insurgency shows no signs of weakening and that the majority of Sunnis either did not vote on or voted against the Constitution and that people are being tortured daily.

Like you said, it's a warzone. There are atrocities being committed on both sides everyday. It's the journalists' job to report what is happening so that we can make informed decisions. You can't just listen to what the President says--like all politicians, he's got an agenda--he doesn't want us to hear bad news about his policies. Take your head out of the sand and pay attention to what the reporters are reporting to you. It's their job to report to you what is going on. Ever heard the old saying, "don't kill the messenger"? Reports from Iraq are negative for a reason. Negative events are occurring daily. Sugar coating it doesn't make it not so.

If Iraq is such a wonderful, progressive place full of business opportunities and budding freedom, ask yourself why nobody wants to go there.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

The sad fact is that the MSM picks and chooses what they want to report on Iraq, and we get only the picture they want us to have. How is that any different from making things up?

You really don't understand how reporting on events that happened is different from making stuff up?

I personally would not believe too much having to do with politics that is printed in the NYT. The newspaper has lost all objectivity in that area. There's a good reason there are two or three different organizations in existence for the sole purpose of trying to keep the Times' reporting honest.

Bull. For every so-called "lib" reporter you bring up, I can name-off another who could be considered to have a conservative bias. The first would be the most obvious, ex-NYT reporter Judith Miller. She protected her anonymous relationship with her Bush White House source over her responsibility to maintain the people's right to know.

Don't you think it's your right to know if high-level White House employees are leaking sensitive intelligence information and who those employees are? Judith Miller didn't think so--instead she protected the identity of a man who supplied her and others with national security information, choosing to go to prison rather than reveal the identity of her administration source.

Does loyalty to the Bush administration signify liberal bias? I certainly don't think so.

Name one reporter--not a columnist--who you think is guilty of intentionally liberally slanting news coverage at the NYT.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Name one reporter--not a columnist--who you think is guilty of intentionally liberally slanting news coverage at the NYT.

If you're honestly "not in the know" about how news is reported by the NYT, skip over to www.timeswatch.org or www.mrc.org and check things out. These organizations report on daily news coverage, not editorials.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Look, everybody's happy that the water is running in some places in Iraq and that a soldier handed a teddy bear to an Iraqi child and that the Kurds and Shiites and some Sunnis agreed on a tentative constitution. That's all well and good and those stories do get reported on--but none of those things overshadow the reality that people are still being blown into smitherines and that the Sunni insurgency shows no signs of weakening and that the majority of Sunnis either did not vote on or voted against the Constitution and that people are being tortured daily.

Like you said, it's a warzone. There are atrocities being committed on both sides everyday. It's the journalists' job to report what is happening so that we can make informed decisions. You can't just listen to what the President says--like all politicians, he's got an agenda--he doesn't want us to hear bad news about his policies. Take your head out of the sand and pay attention to what the reporters are reporting to you. It's their job to report to you what is going on. Ever heard the old saying, "don't kill the messenger"? Reports from Iraq are negative for a reason. Negative events are occurring daily. Sugar coating it doesn't make it not so.

If Iraq is such a wonderful, progressive place full of business opportunities and budding freedom, ask yourself why nobody wants to go there.

ACTUALLLY you are wrong! It should overshadow it. The fact that there is a Constitution in a ME country with a democratically elected govt is the news of the DECADE.

You fail to grasp that there are proportions here. The amount of negative press is disproportinate to what should be getting reported, its that simple. Your continuing to support the disproportinate bad news just proves your bias also.

Why nobody wants to go there? SEE! precisely the point! The MSM paints that picture, even YOU believe it. But FACT is, alot of money is being invested in Baghdad right now, THATS A FACT JACK! Much, much more than was being invested when saddam was in power.

and I presume you consider terrorists nobody then? Apparently THEY want to go there, because unlike you, they grasp the importance of a democracy in Iraq and how terrible a blow it will be to their cause for world domination and spreading terror and tyranny around the globe.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You really don't understand how reporting on events that happened is different from making stuff up?

Bull. For every so-called "lib" reporter you bring up, I can name-off another who could be considered to have a conservative bias. The first would be the most obvious, ex-NYT reporter Judith Miller. She protected her anonymous relationship with her Bush White House source over her responsibility to maintain the people's right to know.

Don't you think it's your right to know if high-level White House employees are leaking sensitive intelligence information and who those employees are? Judith Miller didn't think so--instead she protected the identity of a man who supplied her and others with national security information, choosing to go to prison rather than reveal the identity of her administration source.

Does loyalty to the Bush administration signify liberal bias? I certainly don't think so.

Name one reporter--not a columnist--who you think is guilty of intentionally liberally slanting news coverage at the NYT.

what a joke. Many, many more liberal reporters can be named than conservative. If you dont recognize that, its your problem. Its such an obvious fact its not even worth wasting time discussing.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

But I will provide you with this:

http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2005/fax20050509.asp


MRC Study: Six Times More “Conservative” than “Liberal” Labels on Network News Since Election Day

Extreme Conservatives vs. Unlabeled Liberals

In the six months since November’s elections, network reporters have zeroed in on “conservatives” — especially “religious conservatives” — as an energized and unwelcome force in American politics. As TV told it, George W. Bush won re-election because of strong support from “social conservatives” and would pack the courts with “conservative” judges. It was “conservatives” who pushed Terri Schiavo’s right-to-life case, and “conservatives” like Tom DeLay and John Bolton were embroiled in controversy.

It’s true conservatives have been making a lot of headlines, but even as the networks painted the right side of the spectrum as ideological, and even a tad fanatical, reporters rarely used ideological terms to define liberals. Since Election Day, network reporters branded politicians or groups as “conservative” 395 times, compared to 59 “liberal” labels, a greater than six-to-one disparity. Our last review in 2002 (using the same methodology, but looking only at evening shows) found a four-to-one skew.

As before, MRC analysts used the Nexis database to examine each use of “liberal” and “conservative” on ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programs from November 3 through May 2. We rejected labels that weren’t political (a “conservative investment”) or outside the U.S. context (all those labels of Pope Benedict XVI, for example). We also excluded labels applied by a news source rather than the network reporter.

CBS provided the fewest labels (95) but the worst bias: just seven liberal tags, compared to 88 conservative ones, more than a twelve-to-one skew. NBC, whose three-hour Today spends more time on politics than other morning shows, had the most labels (193), but only 26 liberal modifiers. ABC had the most “balanced” approach — 140 conservative tags vs. 26 liberal labels, a five-to-one disparity. A few examples:

An Imbalanced Approach: On the April 26 Today, Katie Couric introduced a debate segment by branding just one side: “Dee Dee Myers was President Clinton’s first White House press secretary, and Tucker Carlson is a conservative commentator and host for MSNBC.” Were we supposed to believe Myers is non-ideological?

On the March 2 NBC Nightly News, David Gregory talked about “the conservative group USA Next” and the “senior lobbying group AARP,” ideological opposites in the Social Security debate. On all four occasions the networks mentioned USA Next by name, they correctly called it “conservative,” but not once during the six-month study period did a network reporter describe the AARP as “liberal.”

Angry Extremists: On the April 25 Early Show, CBS’s Joie Chen portrayed conservatives as an angry mob: “Thousands of Christian conservatives gathered in Kentucky, seething over what they call the ‘filibuster against faith,' and spoiling for a political fight.” Shortly after the election, on the November 8 Good Morning America, reporter Manuel Medrano trotted out an extreme label: “Arch-conservatives worry that [new Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales may not be conservative enough on hot-button issues.” On the November 4 World News Tonight, ABC’s Linda Douglass warned viewers that “the Senate has gotten much more conservative. One new Senator wants the death penalty for people who perform abortions.”

It’s not that network reporters misuse the “conservative” label. Rather, journalists systematically fail to identify those who seek a secular society and a strong, government-controlled, social welfare system as ideologues of the Left. The media’s labeling scheme presents “conservatives” as less mainstream than their ideological adversaries, even as election returns show that it’s liberals who need to start swimming back to the center.
— Rich Noyes

 

[Hagbard Celine]

ACTUALLLY you are wrong! It should overshadow it. The fact that there is a Constitution in a ME country with a democratically elected govt is the news of the DECADE.

You fail to grasp that there are proportions here. The amount of negative press is disproportinate to what should be getting reported, its that simple. Your continuing to support the disproportinate bad news just proves your bias also.

Why nobody wants to go there? SEE! precisely the point! The MSM paints that picture, even YOU believe it. But FACT is, alot of money is being invested in Baghdad right now, THATS A FACT JACK! Much, much more than was being invested when saddam was in power.

and I presume you consider terrorists nobody then? Apparently THEY want to go there, because unlike you, they grasp the importance of a democracy in Iraq and how terrible a blow it will be to their cause for world domination and spreading terror and tyranny around the globe.

No, you're totally wrong and you're hard-headed on top of it. They aren't reporting on the same bad events over and over again, the MSM gave the Iraqi constitution just as much coverage as they did any other event that occurred in Iraq. The reason coverage of the Iraq war seems so negative is because more negative events occur there on a daily basis.

IYO, should the news ignore negative events so that they can dwell on the positive ones? Wouldn't that misrepresent the reality of the situation?

These are easy questions, but you apparently have never asked yourself any of them. Get a clue!

 

[Bonnie]

Lame.

Once again, there's no media conspiracy to undermine President Bush's "noble" war effort.

Haven't you ever considered the possibility that media reports from and about Iraq are negative because negative things are happening there?

Reporters aren't making this stuff up you know. Tom Lasseter, who is an Iraq war correspondent for the NYT came to speak in my ethics class a few weeks ago. He refused to give his opinion on the politics of the war, but from what he said, Iraq is about as close to hell as you can get.

You need to be posting political cartoons making fun of war supporters for looking at the world through rose-colored glasses, not berating the media for doing their jobs.

Right..LOL

MRC Study: Amid Iraq Progress, Networks Continue to Emphasize Violence and Calls for Withdrawal

No End to Media’s Defeatism
on Iraq War

According to an ABC News/Time magazine survey of 1,700 Iraqi citizens, released in advance of historic parliamentary elections on Thursday, “surprising levels of optimism prevail in Iraq,” according to ABC’s polling director, Gary Langer. “Despite the daily violence there, most living conditions are rated positively, seven in 10 Iraqis say their own lives are going well, and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve in the year ahead.”

Of course, those optimistic Iraqis don’t watch ABC, CBS and NBC every night. A new Media Research Center study of network evening news coverage of Iraq during October and November found the networks maintained the same negative approach our team found during a review of Iraq news during the first nine months of 2005. In spite of a successful constitutional referendum in October, the start Saddam’s trial for mass murder, successful U.S. offensive campaigns along the Syrian border and the return of a number of cities and town to full Iraqi control, the networks continued to offer mainly downbeat coverage of the situation in Iraq.

MRC’s latest analysis focused on 324 Iraq stories aired on the three broadcast evening newscasts between October 1 and November 30. Unlike the earlier study, MRC found that the three newscasts did not provide relatively similar amounts of Iraq war news. The CBS Evening News led the way, airing 139 stories on Iraq — 90 full reports, plus another 49 short items read by the anchor. NBC Nightly News aired 113 stories (81 full reports vs. 32 anchor briefs), while ABC’s World News Tonight aired only 72 Iraq stories in two months (49 full reports and 23 anchor briefs).

More than any overt editorial judgments, our researchers were interested in the agenda of the networks' Iraq stories. How many stories focused on pessimistic developments (such as terrorist attacks or U.S. casualties) and how many told audiences about positive news (such as military victories or progress on the political front)? We catalogued each story, counting as “positive” any story where optimistic news or analysis eclipsed any pessimistic news by at least a three-to-two margin, while “negative” stories emphasized bad news by the same ratio. If a story could not be assigned to either group, it was counted as balanced or neutral.



Using these criteria, we could classify only 34 stories (10%) as positive or optimistic, compared to 200 (62%) that emphasized negativity or pessimism about the Iraq mission, a six-to-one disparity. (The remaining 90 stories were neutral.) During the first nine months of the year, we found 211 stories (15%) emphasizing positive developments, compared with 848 (61%) that relayed mainly bad news. For the year, the number of negative stories on Iraq stands at 1,048 (61%), to just 245 positive stories (14%).

TV’s BAD NEWS AGENDA
One reason for all the negativity was heavy coverage of suicide bombings and other terrorist violence. The networks collectively aired 125 stories about such attacks, about 39 percent of the total. Some of the carnage seemed aimed at getting media coverage, and the networks did not resist those who murdered their way onto TV screens.

NBC’s Mike Boettcher, for example, reported on November 18 bombings that nearly demolished the hotel he was sleeping in. “I thought, ‘Oh, my God! I hope this hotel does not collapse,” Boettcher told anchor Brian Williams. CBS’s Bob Schieffer introduced an October 24 story about bombings near another hotel housing journalists. “The whole thing was caught on tape,” Schieffer announced before reporter Kimberly Dozier narrated the grisly scene captured by hotel security cameras. “The vicious attack shows the insurgents are studying their targets carefully, biding their time, and waiting for that moment’s lapse that leaves their victims vulnerable,” Dozier relayed.

The networks also emphasized the number of American dead and wounded in Iraq, with 98 stories on casualties in October and November. ABC’s World News Tonight led their October 25 broadcast with the news of the 2,000 U.S. death. “It is a milestone,” claimed anchor Elizabeth Vargas. That same night, CBS’s Schieffer could not resist taking a political jab: “More than 90 percent of the 2,000 who died in the war have died since the President declared major combat was at an end in May 2003.”

As we found earlier this year, few stories (just five in two months) featured stories of American soldiers’ heroism, while nearly four times as many (19) focused on allegations of U.S. wrongdoing, including the accidental killing of civilians and claims of prisoner mistreatment. ABC’s Jake Tapper on November 14 offered a long report (touted as “exclusive”) on two Iraqi men who said they were beaten, tortured and sexually humiliated by American forces. Tapper spent most of the story uncritically relaying the Iraqis’ claims, except for one sentence mentioning that the Pentagon denied any U.S. wrongdoing.

But CNN’s Tom Foreman, in a story on the same two men shown the next night on Anderson Cooper 360, found a number of “strange” elements to their story, including claims by one of the men that American soldiers tormented him with lions. “This lawsuit may produce evidence that more Iraqis were brutalized by American soldiers, or it may show that American soldiers are being unjustly accused of things they did not do,” Foreman skeptically concluded.

EXCITED BY ANTI-WAR POLITICIANS
The networks devoted relatively heavy coverage (64 stories, or 20% of the total) to the debate over the war. That is a significant change in focus from the first nine months of 2005, when such stories only accounted for just seven percent of Iraq news. Continuing a trend that began in August with heavy coverage of Cindy Sheehan’s anti-war protests, the networks mainly focused on the complaints of those opposed to the administration’s Iraq policies.

On October 10, after months of negative coverage, CBS’s Bob Schieffer reported how a new poll found “nearly two-thirds of the American people, 64 percent, now believe the war in Iraq was not worth the cost.” In a November 21 profile of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, CBS’s Wyatt Andrews could not accept her optimistic assessment of Iraq: “Is it typical political stagecraft from someone critics fear is over her head, or could it be bedrock belief?”

And all three networks led their November 17 newscasts with Representative John Murtha’s call for withdrawal. NBC’s Brian Williams began by touting Murtha’s authority: “When one Congressman out of 435 members of Congress speaks out against the war in Iraq, it normally wouldn’t be news, but it was today, because of who he is: Congressman John Murtha, a Vietnam veteran.”

But the networks paid almost no attention to Murtha before his liberal-pleasing call to withdraw. A Nexis search of the last five years revealed just one reference to Murtha on NBC Nightly News before November 17. That was on June 28, when Tim Russert found Murtha worried that “the administration is laying the groundwork to cut and run in 2006, and he fears the entire area will be taken over by Iran.” The CBS Evening News and ABC’s World News Tonight never quoted Murtha in the five years before November 17.

THE MEDIA VS. THE MISSION
On November 22, the Washington Times ran a lengthy op-ed from an anonymous Marine in Iraq: “Morale among our guys is very high. They not only believe they are winning, but that they are winning decisively. They are stunned and dismayed by what they see in the American press, whom they almost universally view as against them....They are inflicting casualties at a rate of 20-1 and then see s*** like ‘Are we losing in Iraq?’ on television.”

A recent poll by the Pew Research Center found that top journalists are far more pessimistic than the U.S. public (which itself has faced month after month of bad news on Iraq). Plainly, many journalists are approaching the Iraq story from the premise that the U.S. mission has been a big mistake. Will their negative drumbeat make that belief a self-fulfilling prophecy? — Rich Noyes

http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2005/fax20051213.asp

 

[Bonnie]

No, you're totally wrong and you're hard-headed on top of it. They aren't reporting on the same bad events over and over again, the MSM gave the Iraqi constitution just as much coverage as they did any other event that occurred in Iraq. The reason coverage of the Iraq war seems so negative is because more negative events occur there on a daily basis.

IYO, should the news ignore negative events so that they can dwell on the positive ones? Wouldn't that misrepresent the reality of the situation?

These are easy questions, but you apparently have never asked yourself any of them. Get a clue!

How about you take your head out of your ass mr journalist?? And I mean that with the kindest of intentions

. Poll: Media Elite to Left of Public on Iraq and War on Terrorism
The news media elite are to the left of the public in several policy areas related to the war on terrorism, a poll "of opinion leaders and the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in collaboration with the Council on Foreign Relations," found. While 56 percent of the public believes "efforts to establish a stable democracy" in Iraq will succeed, 63 percent of the news media elite think it will fail; a plurality of 48 percent of the public think going to war in Iraq was correct, but 71 percent of the news media elite consider it a bad decision; the public is split evenly at 44 percent on whether the Iraq war has helped or hurt the war on terrorism, but an overwhelming 68 percent of the news media elite say it has hurt; and 46 percent of the public believe torture of terrorist suspects is often or sometimes "justified," 78 percent of the news media elite contend it is "rarely" or "never" justified. Plus, news media elite approval of Bush's job performance -- at a lowly 21 percent -- is half that of the public's.

2. Media Hype Imaginary Spending "Cuts" Hurting "Poor" and "Farmers"
Journalists remain unable to tell the difference between a slight reduction in increased spending and an actual spending cut. A budget bill, passed by the House very early Friday morning, the Cato Institute estimated, will provide for $7.75 trillion in entitlement spending over five years instead of $7.8 trillion, a mere 0.6 percent difference as the bill overall would reduce planned ever-rising federal spending over the next five years by a piddling one-third of one percent. Yet reporters saw disaster ahead. "The House narrowly approved a broad five-year budget plan early this morning that squeezes programs for the poor, for college students and for farmers," the Washington Post ominously warned. On Friday's Today, Ann Curry asserted: "During the night the House passed $50 billion in budget cuts by two votes. Opponents say the cuts will hurt the poor." CBS Evening News anchor Bob Schieffer echoed the Post's spin about "cuts in programs for the poor, for farmers and students." The NBC Nightly News devoted a whole story to the "cuts" and how "Democrats charged Republicans with taking from the poor to give more tax cuts to the rich," but Chip Reid at least noted that "Republicans also say the bill doesn't really cut spending, it just slows the rate of spending growth."

3. GMA to Bush: If You Can't Open the Door, You Can't Win in Iraq
Monday's Good Morning America found symbolism in President Bush's encounter with a locked door when attempting to leave a press conference in China over the weekend. In the opening tease at 7:00am, co-host Charlie Gibson announced over video of Bush trying to open the locked doors: "No way out. President Bush tries the wrong door on his trip to Asia and has fun for the cameras. But the big question now: Does he have an exit strategy for Iraq?" Later, Jessica Yellin, reporting from Mongolia, couldn't let the door incident go: "The moment seemed to symbolize Mr. Bush's dilemma throughout this Asia trip. Halfway around the world he's been unable to escape a domestic squabble over Iraq and whether it's unpatriotic to question the war."

4. "Top 10 Thoughts Going Through George Bush's Mind at This Moment"
Letterman's "Top Ten Thoughts Going Through George W. Bush's Mind at This Moment" -- Bush in China blocked by a locked door.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Poll: Media Elite to Left of Public on
Iraq and War on Terrorism

The news media elite are to the left of the public in several policy areas related to the war on terrorism, a poll "of opinion leaders and the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in collaboration with the Council on Foreign Relations," found. While 56 percent of the public believes "efforts to establish a stable democracy" in Iraq will succeed, 63 percent of the news media elite think it will fail; a plurality of 48 percent of the public think going to war in Iraq was correct, but 71 percent of the news media elite consider it a bad decision; the public is split evenly at 44 percent on whether the Iraq war has helped or hurt the war on terrorism, but an overwhelming 68 percent of the news media elite say it has hurt; and 46 percent of the public believe torture of terrorist suspects is often or sometimes "justified," 78 percent of the news media elite contend it is "rarely" or "never" justified. Plus, news media elite approval of Bush's job performance -- at a lowly 21 percent -- is half that of the public's.

The "America's Place in the World" survey conducted in September and October, and released Thursday, compared public views to those in eight elite groups: Foreign Affairs, Security, State and Local Government, Academic and Think Tank Leaders, Religious, Scientists and Engineers, Military and the News Media.

For the "News Media" sample the poll covered "people from all types of media: newspapers, magazines, television and radio. Various editors (editors, editors of the editorial page, managing editors) and D.C. bureau chiefs were selected from: the top daily newspapers (based on circulation); additional newspapers selected to round out the geographic representation of the sample; news services; and different types of magazines including news, literary, political, and entertainment and cultural magazines.
"For the television sample, people such as D.C. bureau chiefs, news directors or news editors, anchors, news executives, and executive producers were selected from television networks, chains and news services.
"The radio sample included news directors and/or D.C. bureau chiefs at several top radio stations.
"Top columnists listed in the Leadership Directories' News Media Yellow Book and Bacon's Media source were also selected as part of the media subsample."

Some of the findings for the public versus the news media elite:

# "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%

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2005/cyb20051122.asp#1