Yep! There's no bias in the MSM news we're getting out of Iraq....after all, we would have loved to have Edward R. Murrow reporting on the war from behind the German lines in WWll, wouldn't we?

Of course, the Moonbats would say that the media were only showing "both sides" in the conflict....funny how all the reporting thus far seems to highlight the "insurgents" Islamofacists side of things in three provences out of 14; with almost no news of any reconstruction efforts by Co-allition Forces or "success" stories of everyday Iraqis in the other 11 provences though isn't it?

We see stories of Iraqis getting killed murdered while waiting in line to join the new Iraqi military or police forces, because it shows the "insurgents" as a "force to be reckoned with", but little to no news on how these events only cause the Iraqis to try to join these institutions in increased numbers, because it might show the "insurgents" to be what they are, fanatics in a losing cause.

If a cameraman was standing by the side of one of the insurgants Islamofacists during a gun battle with the Marines....I find that it would seem that the cameraman was trying to get a story that slanted towards those scum, rather than just covering an event....of course, maybe it's just MY biases showing in that opinion. I guess it's unpatriotic of me to ask just how a member of the 4th Estate came to be with a group of the enemy engaged in a gun battle with Marines? (Free speech and total equality of views from all sides and all that).

To me, treating with the enemy in time of war is ipso facto treason, but I guess I'm just too "uneducated" or "provincial in my views" to get the nuances involved....

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 02:24 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.