Posted on 11/30/2008 10:11:34 PM PST by goldstategop
Have you noticed lately that mainstream media are giving less attention to the war in Iraq, especially concerning our troops progress?
CNSNews recently reported that, "There were only two front page New York Times stories that mentioned "Iraq" in the headline in October 2008 – there were 11 in October 2006 and 17 in October 2004. … The Washington Post ran four front-page stories that had headlines using the word "Iraq" in October 2008 – in October 2006 there were 17 stories, and 27 stories in October 2004." (Was it coincidental timing that, when George Bush was up for re-election in 2004, there were record numbers of [negative] war stories?)
One can partially point the finger at the economy or election coverage as reasons for the reduction of Iraq war articles. But I believe those issues were used more as justifications for the liberal media's intentional neglect to report U.S. Middle East military progress. Who doesn't recognize that we live in a time in which there's little if no publishing space for positive military stories about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?
Case in point: In July the London Times ran a column that commended American and Iraqi forces in making significant progress in Mosul and reaching the "final purge" of al-Qaida in Iraq. Investor's Business Daily echoed the same sentiment and story, but sharply criticized American mainstream media for completely overlooking that military success and coverage. The media indictment become so widespread on the Internet that it left the global audience wondering if such an oversight wasn't also an urban legend.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Good news about Iraq was certainly overlooked, but I think there was a story that was even more ignored by the MSM.
That story was Barack Obama. Never in the history of the USA has the press failed to examine a candidate like they failed in the case of Obama.
The lack of media scrutiny into the life and record of Obama caused this fraud to be elected to the most powerful office in the world.
It's like spending time in an opaque bubble with selected "news" being fed in by keepers in white jackets and hairnets.
Periodically, a flat tire or leaky faucet is slipped in so that an issue can be resolved.
There is still TV, with the occasional commercial to provide a laugh.
The only source of natural light seems to be the Internet...and that's not to be trusted.
(Someone please tell me "they" really are out to get me; I'd hate to think I had problems.)
Wasn’t Sarah Palin attacked as naive to suggest that victory was at hand in Iraq. She was right; Harry Reid was wrong. Guess who most Americans still think is smarter.
They’ll report it a few months after Obama takes office and give him the credit.
The American media was on its knees praying for defeat. Then when victory came, they just remained on thier knees and shifted their attention to making Obama feel better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.