They certainly are. Look at how they treated Joe Wilson and Richard Clarke as just two recent examples. Both of their stories had many holes that were easily exposed by the factual state of the record, yet the media pushed the demonstrably false lines as long and as far as they could. As soon as the evidence became overwhelming that the men were discredited, they simply drop the topic and "move on", knowing that some damage has been done.
They have truly embraced the Big Lie lately. There is no doubt about it.
And one more thing, journalists of good will who are not propagandists better get a clue and quick. They should quit going along to get along and act like discussing an obviously false story just because the mainstreams have outlined the major talking points a certain way, is acceptable. They better start calling a spade a spade and a lie a lie.
"Honest reporting" has is totally gone out the window. When you look around, the Kranishes (Kerry supporter), the Campbell Browns (White House "correspondent" - unashamedly biased from Democrat political family), the Rathers, Jennings, Brokaws, UPI, Reuters, etc....
In a communist country, these "usefull idiots" would be the first to "go"!
I don't think they know the difference. These journalists are either the product of the anti-war movement worldview of the 60s or a US education that has taught for years that Viet Nam was bad, we were bad for being there and the leaders were bad for lying to us about it all. Picture yourself if someone challenged what you considered to be an essential truth on which you have built your worldview. It reminds me of the old communists of the 20s and 30s who one day had to face the fact of the gulags, it broke them in two.
The only use the Dems have for Kerry's service in Viet Nam is that he found the light (in their eyes) when he returned to this country. It gives them cover that he was there and nothing else, exploring what he did there doesn't matter to them because it's not the point of all of their manufactured images.