Media: Fair and Balanced?

You decide. While I can't find the survey now, it was a while ago - but the majority of Americans stated they were willing to accept less complete media coverage of certain events if the details of those events involved covert activities engaged in by the government in the global war on terror.

I realize there are some fine lines to be drawn for the definitions of concepts involved in that position. But I also don't believe the majority of Americans support giving the enemy propaganda when it can be avoided. Apparently some in the media feel they haven't beaten upon the military and the Bush administration enough to justify complying with the wishes of average Americans.

The Washington Post has pulled out of a Pentagon-sponsored Freedom Walk to commemorate 9/11 and support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan because it was deemed too political. Meanwhile, the New York Times, CBS, and other news organizations have joined with the ACLU in demanding that the Pentagon release more sensational photos and videos of Iraqi prisoner abuse. The inevitable result of such disclosure, according to General Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is that Islamic terrorists will exploit the material and kill Americans. Do our media care?

Another average American who has become non-average by altering her statements and positions on the President and the Iraq War has suffered a family hardship. I think Bob is right - even if he is a bit confused over the whole North versus South thing.

This post is also available at Blogger News Network.

Comments

[proudredneck]

General Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is that Islamic terrorists will exploit the material and kill Americans. Do our media care?

And Meyers knows it and the NYT and WaPo seem bent on destroying the soldiers who gave them that freedom of press and the country they fight for. It's not even good for bird cages, the NYT and WaPo.

[DennisAOK]

"Fair and balanced" is in the eye of the beholder. We all have our own biases and viewpoints based on our life experiences. We filter the news through those lenses. The decisions about what stories to cover, whom to interview, what questions to ask, etc., all reflect that. The New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and major broadcast networks (besides Fox) represent an extremely liberal point of view. Surveys of their reporters reflect almost 90% support for Democrats. This left a large underserved segment of the American population that was open to a more conservative viewpoint. Fox has filled that void and made a great deal of money doing so. In a free market place of ideas, we consumers have a choice. I disagree with the liberal media, and so I ignore it.

Unfortunately, in my view, Bush made a terrible mistake in invading Iraq, which has played into the hands of the Left. Sometimes being conservative means keeping your powder dry, not squandering political capital, and exploiting divisions within the ranks of your enemy. Rather than a quixotic - and ultimately unsucessful - mission to convert the Muslim world to democracy, I think we should have set our sights on less lofty but more achievable goals to contain terrorism.

[!]

Just my opinion.
Bush did not make a bad decision in invading Iraq.
Decisions were made based on intelligence provided to him and all the cabinet members and congress. It has not been proven to date whether there were Wmd's in Iraq at the time of the war or not. This still remains an unanswered question. We all know they "were" there.
~The world is a better place with Saddam gone.!~
Can anyone deny that?
It wasn't until our troops started getting killed by evil and sick terrorists that people began to complain. "Kinda" like the viet nam war.
This country needs to stand behind the President and its leaders reguardless of how you feel about the war in Iraq. Things would be a lot better for the troops over there as well as the USA as a whole.
~United we stand~
~Divided we fall~ !
Please grow up and stop your moaning and complaining.
Its really "not" about the war, its all political. Thats the real truth of the matter and thats sad!

[Not a Hand Wringer.]

The newsweek article didn't kill anyone anymore than Bush's 'Bring Em On' comment.

[Beth]

Well said, "!" !
And the truth is, everyone knows it but politics get the left to shout slogans to the contrary. It's just plain stupid. I can't even be bothered to dignify their stupid lies and distortions with much response beyond laughing and eye-rolling any more.

[Roy]

Please grow up and stop your moaning and complaining.
Its really "not" about the war, its all political. Thats the real truth of the matter and thats sad!

Posted by: ! | Aug 18, 2005 8:44:59 PM

The big problem is how easily everybody accepts certain twists.
Ar first the invasion of Iraq was because of WMD, which was shaky from the start.
All of a sudden the same invasion was because of the war against terrorism.
Even the connection between Saddam and Bin Laden has still to be established as fact.

[Sgt. York]

Every pro-war dork here should be marching down to their local Army recruiter. There is an enlistment shortage. I don't care if you already served, I don't care if you are in school, I dont care if you are married, I dont care if you are too fat. You support it, then you get your yellow chicken-hawk azz in the kill zone.

[coconuttree]

CNN) -- A former top aide to Colin Powell says his involvement in the former secretary of state's presentation to the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was "the lowest point" in his life.