Eyewitness accounts here demonstrate that future attempts will likely fall on deaf ears.
At that point, it's just as much a waste of the propagandists time as it is the listeners. In addition, if they ever DO have somethign credible and important to report, they run the risk of not being believed. Just ask the "boy who cried wolf" what happens then.
Remember that the LA Times ran a doctored photo (proving that you can't believe your eyes).
Just because we have US based news agencies does not mean that they are rooting for our side. And I don't buy their claim that "we can't call the 9/11 hijackers 'terrorists' because we must remain unbiased".
The press is biased. The press did not identify who originated the "antiwar" protests (or reveal that they did not have America's interests at heart, they are communists). Some of these same people protested Clinton's wars but those protests did not get legs from the US press; they wanted it to look like a "grass roots" effort of housewives and college kids.
The networks had their dissenting voices echoing the words "quagmire" and "blood for oil". They are free to broadcast such propaganda but it is not healthy programming (and neither would a constant drumbeat "WE WILL WIN, WE WILL WIN"). If there is nothing to report on the war (or nothing to report without compromising troops), then go back to BS entertainment as usual.