Fred has the creds to write what he writes and I agree with him.
No, I'm not missing the point. Though the author and you are.
There indeed is no such thing as neutral reporting, and until the Vietnam War few if any American reporters during a conflict would have desired to be neutral. They were *American* reporters.
The press currently claims this amoral neutrality, which would be bad enough were it real, while in fact supporting our foes.
Even one were to believe Bush was the evil moron the press does, trying to lose the war for America to damage a domestic political opponent *should* be beyond the pale...
Which is really meaningless if he writes what he does. No, people do not have some right to publicly follow every step of a battle. That is self-defeating. The enemy can read the same accounts and change his plans accordingly. There is no reasonable need even to know, beforehand, the general's operational plan, for just the same reason, and precisely because so much effort goes in to diversion and disinformation in order to help the plan succeed and reduce our own casualties.
Reporters don't turn against war because they are there. They turn against whatever Republicans do, but not Democrats. That's literally the history of the last decade and a half. And you can't ignore that history, that fact, and that bias which eats at the heart of nation to the extent that citizens take the talking heads seriously and consider their words to be even somewhat reliable, when it all might be a complete and utter work of fiction, or at least a gross misrepresentation of the situation, intended only to further the reporter's own partisan agenda.
