The Gantry Launchpad

Hey Casey, typo alert! You typed "Iraq" above when you meant "Iran!"

One of the odd assumptions in the “liberal media” debate is that there is only one explanation for the covering the stories that they cover. I spent 15 years of my life in broadcasting and I can tell you that politics rarely enters into the picture. You won’t believe me and those that have never been in the business really don’t know what it’s like.

News media wants stories that create controversy, have a “feel good” angle but primarily they want to sell deodorant and hair color; good news rarely meets that test. I went to the web site were Dean got the story and they describe the events as sporadic and small. Why would the news media report it? Is it really a “big” story and more to the point will it sell deodorant?

Because even if it’s a historic moment if it doesn’t meet the latter test then it will not get on the mainstream media, they are in the game to make money not to inform.

Also CNNs reporting in Iraq was no more distorted then FOX news’ was (opr anyone else for that matter. I was out of work during that time and I spent whole days switching from news cast to news cast. Every other day there was a report of “WMDs being found that never panned out on all of the stations. The reporting is about what you would expect in an ongoing coverage situation with little chance to fact check.

True, Rick, as far as it goes.

But certainly all the major wire services and outlets print stories that they consider relevant, yes? While "If it bleeds, it ledes" is true, they do have a known record of publishing what suits them.

For example: Reuters normally doesn't use the word terrorist, no matter who they're writing about. It pops up once in a while, but in quote, thusly: 'the "terrorist" attack... etc.'

As for the equivalence of reporting from FOX and CNN, it is to laugh. You did hear about how CNN cravenly submitted all releases to the Iraqi government before the invasion, and had done so for over a decade? You did read that the CNN crews usually had official government "handlers" the entire time that the Hussein regime was in power, yes?

CNN has precisely zero credibility, exactly because they toadied to a dictator for over a decade...

It wasn't until after Hussein had been overthrown that CNN confessed to their craven policy.

P.S. Dean, thanks! I fixed that stupid typo.