Consider the Source
Here's an interesting story. It's entitled "Fears Impacted U.S. Reporting in Iraq." While the title itself indicated to me that the content was probably a crock of crap, the main thing that stood out in the body of the article was the fact that these indubitably-fair-minded-and-not-at-all liberals-who-are-anti-war-peaceniks met at UC-Berkeley! Uhh, you're stacking the ideological deck a weee bit on the liberal side when you convene at Berkeley. Don't you think? Meet in Montana next time.

"Massing...found The New York Times and The Washington Post particularly at fault."

Hmmm. It's not hard to guess the tendentiousness of the dude claiming the media was being tendentious. My biased friend, perhaps it's because YOU'RE biased and the papers decided NOT to be because they'd be rightfully slammed for being pro-peace or "pro-anti-war." If they were more fair (and I'm sure they were since this Berkeley Journalist Panel talked about FEAR to try to instill more FEAR in us because we should be AFRAID for the future of journalistic integrity [which is a SCARY thought] because the news reporting wasn't properly tailored to their left-wing "every-war-must-be-intrinsically-wrong" liberal standards), I applaud them.

  posted by Stephen @ 12:48 AM