Note the headline "These Soldiers Say 'Over There' Is 'Bogus'". They emphasize that this story is an anecdote; that one particular collection of soldiers, having watched an episode, called it bogus. There's nothing wrong with that. That's fine, that's accurate, that's good journalism. Except for negative stories, the media always omits the qualifier. If the story is about a couple of returned soldiers who oppose the war, the headline is, "Iraq Veterans Oppose War." If the story is about a handful of Iraqis who are protesting the occupation, the headline is, "Iraqis Demand U.S. Withdrawal." They never, never use the headline to accurately portray anecdotal evidence when it paints the United States in a negative light.
Good observation. Very subtle yet very diceptive on the part of the MSM. Another attempt at immersing their bias (or lack of) when it is convenient to their cause er I mean their story!
Good points. Over and over, the MSM portrayed an Iraqi cab driver or school teacher as "the voice of Iraq," accepting whatever they said (e.g., "The Americans killed my mother because she was a Muslim and a good woman") at face value with no qualifiers whatsoever and no questioning of their veracity. Meanwhile, everything Bush said or did was challenged ("Mr. President, was that a real turkey you held up on your trip to Baghdad?) and nitpicked. This was how the war was presented.