I am partly convinced that there are a number of reasons that the MSM is working so hard to undermine the USA's military efforts.
Partly, due to the fact that most "journalists" are pretty much politically left wing and opposed to most wars (as "Princess Ann" would say, the press opposes any war that is in the interests of the USA).
That for reasons that I've never understood, many fledgling journalists go into the profession "to make the world a better place." I thought that journalists were supposed to report the news, not be propagandists.
And that the MSM is enamoured with power. They remember that the MSM manipulations of the news caused the USA to lose a war (never mind the fact that they were also responsible for millions of deaths when the USA pulled out of Viet Nam), proving how powerful they were.
I think that this combination is what's causing the MSM to try to hide anything good that happens in Iraq.
Mark
"And that the MSM is enamoured with power. They remember that the MSM manipulations of the news caused the USA to lose a war (never mind the fact that they were also responsible for millions of deaths when the USA pulled out of Viet Nam), proving how powerful they were."
Out of curiousity which of the wars, Vietnam or Iraq has the MSM written more negative news about?
To fledgling jounalists, putting the same face on Iraq as was put on Viet Nam would be a badge of honor. In their twisted way of thinking it would give them the recognition that the Dan Rather's got during the Viet Nam war. Individually, no matter what they say about "making the world a better place", it is in their subconscious that they can have a better place in future assignments/positions in journalism if they treat the war this way so that they can gain favor with their editors (now and in the future) and be given special recognition among their peers.