"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!
But the point he did make--that is compelling--is that seeing the horrific nature of war first hand takes away the objectivity of reporters.
Isn't that what you and the other critics of the column assert? That objectivity of the MSM is a phantom? I don't see that this makes Fred a jerk. It just makes him right.