[truth_seeker]

"Sorry, but CNN is kicking Fox's butt tonight. They have had more camera angles and continuous coverage for the last hour, while Fox has just had occassional shots for short periods and spending most of the time saying the same things for the 100th time."

I've noted that at any time, one network may have the best video coverage, of some event or aspect.

I've further noted that the political agenda of CNN, MSNBC, the BBC soon litter the audio with their inane commentary. As soon as facts clear away one "quagmire" they are quick to find and report another.

Their political agenda is vaguely searching for a neutral spin, as if they want to be "world" TV and not American/Coalition TV.

FOX consistently has, in my view, the most intelligent commentary. The political agenda of FOX comes across clearly that US/British victory is the goal, that they support.

[Jewels1091]

I can't STAND that eoman on MBNBC now, I will not even watch her for a few minutes...SHE ASKS STUPID QUESTIONS!!! And doesn't know when to shut up.

[leftiesareloonie]

You are right about CNN, MSNBC wanting to be "world" TV, but they can't quite pull it off.

I disagree with you about the desirability of this. I think it's the JOB of the media to try to find a neutral vantage point, to the extent possible.

The media doesn't need to provide government spin. Let the government do its own spinning.

[SHKMAN1212]

I agree with your assessment that Fox has the best commentary, but CNN did have the best images (a lot of times they were the only station with any of the live video feeds from downtown Baghdad).

But Aaron Brown has GOT to go. A-10's were dropping flares after each of their runs last night and the guy had to ask EVERY time if they were dropping bombs. Each time the army consultant they had no there told him, politely, that they are just flares to ward off any SAMs. When he then asked if they could be dropping flares on targets to take them out - good video or not - I had to change the channel.