[conservatism_IS_compassion]

"We captured an Iraqi brigadier general in the raid," he said. "He was completely surprised there were American tanks in the city. He believed their propaganda that the Americans were a hundred miles south, dying by the thousands. All of a sudden he's coming to work and there is a tank battalion rolling down the center of Baghdad."

It became apparent to Perkins that the propaganda being put out by Saddam's regime was giving the Iraqis a false sense of security and emboldening them to continue to fight.

So propaganda was causing people to try to kill American soldiers.

But Peter Arnet had an absolute right to parrot that propaganda line in an interview with al Jazera. </sarcasm>

Remembering the 3rd Infantry Division's Thunder Runs
(American Forces Press Service)
www.defenselink.mil | By Jim Garamone

Notwithstanding the obvious fact that the terrorist attacks on our troops in Iraq over the past year were motivated by the hope of unfavorable PR for our president and our armed forces, print journalism could not, constitutionally, be constrained to withhold that payout to the terrorists without imposing martial law in America.

But the question is, "Was/is the payout to the terrorists of negative PR for the President of the United States in the interest of the United States? Was/is it justifiable for government-licensed broadcasters to provide that payout for murder? Do government-licensed broadcasters have a constitutional right to use neutral terms to describe the attempted murder of American soldiers, merely because those soldiers are on foreign soil, and in uniform? Did/do government-licensed broadcasters have the right to insinuate that the regime of Saddam Hussain remained legitimate when the U.S. government had overthrown that regime and established the policy of replacing it with a constitutional democratic republic?"

Journalism, print and broadcast, would answer that in the affirmative. I say, "No!" But then, I dont' think CFR is constitutional, either . . .

[E.G.C.]

Media bias bump.

[Teacher317]

Maybe journalism should be mandated to be not-for-profit, like churches, charities, and non-profit corporations. That would weed out the need for sensationalism, truth-stretching, and particular biases.

[ForGod'sSake]

I say, "No!"

While I generally agree, I can't find a simple yes or no answer to the questions you raise. These days, the (manufactured?)complexities create furballs of what should otherwise be simple situations. The liklihood the media is putting American lives at risk really muddies up their first amendment right....or does it? I don't find any qualifiers.

Maybe one solution might be for "W" to take it to the American people. Explain that the position most of our faux press is taking on the WOT generally, and Iraq in particular, is endangering Americans at home and abroad by giving aid and comfort to the infidels. Tell Americans the faux press has the right to spew their drivel, but that American citizens have the final word on the media's performnace, and should hold them accountable if they feel they are crossing the line. In fact, it should be our duty, but most people need a fire lit under 'em before they'll get up off the couch.

But then, I dont' think CFR is constitutional, either . . .

Can't argue with that.

FGS