And if we had reporters who thought like this in 1939 we'd have lost that war too.
There indeed is no such thing as a nonpartisan reporter. The problem is the MSM believes that destroying George Bush is more important then winning the war in Iraq.
Much like Rather's TANG fakes, the press will manufacture news to try and lose the war. This isn't to say the information is necessarily false, most of it isn't. It is the spin the press, knowingly, puts on it.
Consider two possible headlines from a previous war;
1) American Troops Capture Iwo Jima; GIs Knocking on Hirohito's Door.
2) American Death Toll in Iwo Jima Reaches 7,000; Japan Remains Undaunted.
Both true enough. The press today would certainly provide the latter interpretation, unlike the press of the WWII era.
[Again, suppose that you are trying very hard to be objective, whatever you think that means. How do you do it? Reporting of necessity requires that a reporter make choices. Any choice constitutes a slant.]
This is pure sophistry.
Truly objective journalism consists of adhering to strict standards of writing in style, content, mechanics, and many other parameters that journalists USED to learn. Now it's all about selling both an ideological viewpoint (angle) and a compelling story (info-tainment).
Maybe journalists should try seeing things from the enemy's point of view! Were journalists more idiologically incline during WWII? No, were they during the Korean war? What changed was TV. Context and perception were replaced with 60 second sound bites and emotive expressions from journalists. Soldiers reduced to automatons without any humanity left in them. Victims of violence still and unmoving expressing an emotive reflex from journalists to subdue the viewer and have them sympathize with the victims of violence (almost always the enemy of the US since 90% of casualties during combat against US forces are not americans!) Cry me a river will you?
I've read Fred's weekly column for some time, and I liked his writing better before he did the expat thing to Mexico.
In this article Fred wants the reporter "on the ground" to report what he sees, but when that reporter files his story it goes through an editor who may want something completely different on the front page.
We're constantly told, by the MSM, about the growing American body count, but the MSM leaves out the terrorists casualties. If it's American blood it leads. Terrorist blood, if it's reported at all, is on the back pages. Is it any wonder the MSM is losing readership/viewer-ship?
I would like for them to report what is happening. My complaint is that they don't but pretend to report what they ave not seen while sharing a bye-line with an Arab stringer who may lie just to get paid or may even be an agent of the enemy. I do know that where had a first-hand witness of events in Najaf, press reports contridycted what he saw with his own eyes. Reporters are always more interested in telling a good stort than in a bare recital of the facts, because unless they do they won't get reported.
Reporters turn 'against' wars if it's a Republican in office. There was little complaint when Clinton impotently shot missiles at abandoned camps and warehouses, and committed, perhaps rightly, the US to Balkan 'peace-keeping'. Not a peep. Not a complaint. But a Republican President is another matter. Reporters aren't against war because they are there. They are against Republicans and Americans because they are there, because they continue to vote Republican as long as Republicans continue to best represent the best of American values. They turn against it all because reporters are none of that. FOX attempts to be different in that way. But we can still recall the pro-sKerry coverage granted by what some might call a turn-coat network embarrassed, perhaps, by a film only they saw called, Outfoxed. They must have thought the film made some good points. And it shows how difficult it is, truly, to find reporters who think American, rather than with the enemies of America.
"Don't know if you've heard of Fred Reed. IMHO one of the best commentators on the net."
I've been reading Reed for a long while. IMHO he's a jerk, just like all others who vilify the US while whitewashing the atrocities of the mad Moslem murderers we're fighting against. He's a Vietnam Era throwback who sees no good in anything we do, just like his buddy Colonel Hackworth. These guys are locked in some anti-US Vietnam time warp. They couldn't define "objective" if they looked it up in the dictionary.
Ask yourself why Reed chose an example of American soldiers firing on Iraqis who obviously broke a safety perimeter improperly. If the guy had any interest in objectivity at all, he'd take his camera to the mass graves or torture chambers where the blood of innocent Iraqis have been flowing by the barrel full over the past thirty years under the demon Hussein. Then he'd provide some REAL perspective for his readers looking for justification for the War on Terror. But he's not interested in anything but seeking out incidents that validate his own personal opinions. And that's what bias truly is!
Well you start out by not telling half truths Mr. Reed
"An Iraqi family in a car, not knowing the patrol is there, turn the corner. The Marines open fire on the car. The parents are killed. Their young daughter, splattered with their blood, stands screaming in horror. Mommy, though dead, is still moving. Ugly things are coming out of her stomach. The girl is ten."
... this is a summary of an actual event from last week. Unfortunately he leaves out the part of the original story which described the Marines a signaling the car to stop and firing numerous warning shots. Curious he chose to leave this out.
This could be an isolated mistake, my instincts tell me it is not.