[AL Perrin]

It all really began when President Reagan was re-elected in 1984 by the largest landslide victory in US history. Up until that time I’d been living under the mistaken illusion that the press objectively reported the news, and fairly told the truth about circumstances as they were. I trusted them back then, as I think did most Americans. And so, when President Reagan held a press conference the very next day about an unrelated issue, I expected just a small, polite, courteous, and respectful applause from the assembled press corps. There was none. President Reagan was met by a stony, rude, and very hostile silence.

It was with a fair amount of déjà vu then today that I witnessed the same sort of bristling open press hostility during President Bush’s joint press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. With his opening remarks, President Bush graciously paid Prime Minister Blair a series of personal compliments, calling him “courageous,” and “a good friend.” The press was dead silent. Not one reporter applauded, or even smiled, or nodded their head at this show of wartime coalition solidarity. And then came the rude, disapprovingly negative hostile questions.

There has been much discussion over the last few years over bias in the mainstream press. Rarely are specific examples either pro, or con ever presented. But, this rude silence, and grilling by the press corps audience of a President of The United States and a staunch British ally during a time of war is a prime example I think of their thundering bias, and anti-Bush liberal prejudice. Therefore, for them to pretend that all of this destructive, and anti-administration bias doesn’t affect their abilities to fairly report the facts – or for that matter to even tell the truth – is either naïveté, or downright dishonesty in the extreme.

And as such, they are in fact helping, Saddam Hussein’s brutal, oppressive, and terrorist regime continue to fight. In essence, they are encouraging the Iraqi propaganda machine to wage the war in the only arena that Saddam Hussein has any real chance of winning. He, and his cohorts know that they can’t possibly win against us with tanks, and planes, so they must fight us with images, negativity, and press manipulation, hoping that we – the American people – will ultimately quit.

So, it really makes you wonder about our own liberal mainstream press. Exactly whose side are they really on?

[rllngrk33]

So, it really makes you wonder about our own liberal mainstream press. Exactly whose side are they really on?

You don't really think they're on our side and that they're objective in their reporting ???

[zingzang]

Exactly whose side are they really on?

They are on the side of anyone who is anti Bush and anti America.

[Bahbah]

Something that has struck me recently is that, while for some time the bias has been pretty smoothly injected, the hatred seems to have become so intense that they have been blinded to how obvious they are being.

[elbucko]

when it comes to our security, if we need to act, we will act,......when it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's [the U.N.'s] permission.

In the personal context of the same concept:

I do believe that the Federal and State governments impingement upon our ability to be "ready and able" to attend to our "personal defense", is as deplorable as United Nations attempting to infringe on the right of the United States to its own "national defense".

[elbucko]

It all really began when President Reagan was re-elected in 1984..

For me the bias of press was made manifest during the election of 1964. Press bias didn't start then either, I think it has always been with us. I recall a saying that goes; "People who like that sort of thing, tend to like that sort of thing". Journalists are essentially socialists and so; "tend to like that sort of thing.

What we are seeing from the press now is more anti- Bush, than pro-Hussein. It is sleeping with the enemy, nevertheless.