“I’m trying. I’ve been trying all week. The other day, I drove another 30 miles or so on the streets and alleys of Baghdad. I’m looking for the civil war that The New York Times declared. And I just can’t find it. Maybe actually being on the groun…

There are at least two sides to every story, and if you haven’t yet read Dude, Where’s My Civil War? by Ralph Peters (New York Post, March 5, 2006), you’re missing a big part of the current story in Iraq. Ralph Peters has been riding in Baghdad with…

How many more research studies have to be conducted, showing the majority of journalists slant left, that there is liberal bias in the media, before someone such as “Stop Bush” finally acknowledges such? I don’t mind partisan newspapers. What drives me nuts is hiding their partisanship behind a facade of reporting straight news without a political bias.

To repeat the same storyline that negatively affects the Bush Administration. Mind you now, not all major news outlets are part of the Agenda Media.

Examples of agenda reporting: When reporting on the NSA intercept program, EVERY article that I’ve read from the AP, NY Times, Washington Post, CNN.com, CBS.com and LA Times characterizes the program as “domestic wiretapping”, which we know is patently false.

When we read about the DPW deal, they started by saying that we were selling our ports. Hillary even called it “outsourcing our security”, which she knew was false. Did the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, CBS, etc., call her on it? NOPE. That’s dishonest.

“For example, Ralph Peters, and others quoted on this blog, describes Iraq as a virtual utopia, ad nauseum. The schools are open! Women are voting! But what should the media report when extremists (of any stripe) blow up a mosque? Is it not news?”

You think that his reporting describes Iraq as a virtual utopia? You’ve got to tell me what type of drugs you’re using cuz they must be incredible.

As for the Agenda Media reporting about the bombings, yes they should report that. But they shouldn’t stop there. They should report all of the news. And they shouldn’t hide in their hotels like a bunch of chicken*****. If they wanted to do real reporting, they have to be embedded with the troops so they can see reality instead write about what their Iraqi ‘helpers’ spoonfeed them.

Oh and how about getting the facts right while they’re at it. Saying that there are 1,300 dead from the ‘civil war’ lying in the morgue without them physically verifying it is unconscienable. That isn’t reporting.

It might’ve even been nice for them to get it right that civil war had broken out. It hasn’t.

Thus far, the so-called mainstream media has painted the bleakest picture on Iraq. That isn’t accidental. Michael Yon, Austin Bay and now Ralph Peters have all gotten the story straight.

Let’s not forget the wretched job these idiots did in covering Katrina, either. The Agenda Media told us that there were rapes happening inside the Superdome, that there was a particularly gruesome rape of a little girl, that there was an entire cooler full of dead bodies and that there were likely to be 10,000+ dead as a result of Katrina. They didn’t find hundreds of rapes committed in the Superdome. There were less than a dozen. Thankfully, there weren’t 10,000 people fatalities because of Katrina; it was 974. There wasn’t a cooler full of dead bodies. PERIOD.

Shall I continue with the disgustingly incompetent reporting that we’ve seen in the past 6 months or should I drag in Rathergate, Easongate and other ‘reporting’ atrocities, too?

If that’s your idea of good reporting, then you’ve got ridiculously low standards, standards that barely evade the accusation of utter propaganda.

After all the lying that the Agenda Media has done, you dare call this Administration bigger liars than the man who couldn’t tell the truth if his life depended on it? Don’t make me laugh.

Is life in Iraq a utopia? Heck no! Is it a hell hole with civil war breaking out everywhere? Heck no as well! Why can’t we tell a story that’s closer to the truth and not one of these extremes?!

The premise, that the mainstream media has an agenda, is tragically laughable. I have some questions that I’d like to pose, and
I’d like to see this forum respond. Well, if we can keep from the name-calling, vitriol and finger-pointing, that is.

Exactly what is the agenda of the media?

For example, Ralph Peters, and others quoted on this blog, describes Iraq as a virtual utopia, ad nauseum. The schools are open! Women are voting! But what should the media report when extremists
(of any stripe) blow up a mosque? Is it not news? If not, what is news… that a reporter can ride around with a platoon and see schoolchildren jump up and down for joy? How is it more representative of what’s really going on when he reports of people dancing in the streets when they see a military convoy, yet not news when another reporter sees Iraqis protest the
occupation?

Let’s view it from a different angle. What is the truth?

Saddam has the weapons to harm us; Saddam had no such weapons. The terrorists
are on the run; the terrorists are increasing in number and violence. The insurgency is in its death throes; the insurgency was just kicking into gear when Dick Cheney said that. We will prevail in Iraq; the soldiers themselves say that isn’t possible. Clear skies; relaxed pollution standards. Intelligent design, something that deserves equal footing to science; a massive case of intellectual fraud, payola to a constituency, completely invented out of whole cloth. We won’t negotiate with rogue states; we will instead isolate
and vanquish North Korea; North Korea now has nuclear weapons it never had before. Dubai is our ally; Dubai boycotts Israel. This list could go on for about 5,000 words.

– Michael Tomasky, writing in The American Prospect

I’d add to that list a few domestic issues, such as “No one knew the terrorists would fly planes into buildings” when, in fact, enough branches of government were sufficiently worried about such activity that they lead the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing with the headline “Bin Laden Determined to Strike
Inside the United States”; “no one knew the levees were going to break” when, in fact, everyone from days-in-advance Michael Brown (scapegoat who’s looking more and more like a hero) to the years-in-advance
Times-Pacayune warned that the levees were at risk.

This is the most honesty challenged administration in history. They make Bill Clinton lying about sex with an intern look like, well, the Saturday Night Live skit it was: a lie about sex, marital fidelity and impropriety in the White House. But contrast Clinton’s lie with Bush’s, and ask yourselves, how many people died when Clinton lied, and how many have died when Bush lied?

The Bush Administration just can’t seem to tell the truth. If lying weren’t at the very core of this administration, why can’t Dick Cheney report — immediately — that he was involved in an accident? You see, everything that they do is suspect
because they have an honesty problem. If, as the Vice President says, it was merely an accident, why the delay and subterfuge? Why, instead of facing the media head-on, dispelling the rumors and cutting the speculation off at the knees, does Cheney delay, ignore and ultimately spin the matter?

There is one bright point in this example, however: the proliferation of “I’d rather hunt with Cheney than drive with Kennedy” buttons, pins, bumper stickers, et al, with either a link to sites selling them, or my personal favorite, the cartoon that switches between a picture of Cheney in hunting-orange vest with his trademark scowl to a picture of Kennedy, drink in one hand/steering wheel in the other.
It only took 35 years, but the Right has finally admitted that accidents happen to politicians, too. (Turn about is fair play. I say “how many people died when Bush lies”, you say you’d “rather hunt with
Cheney…” And before you scream “but Mary Jo Kopeckne died and Worthington walked away on his own!” let me reference my question again: how many people have died since Bush lied about those illusive WMDs in Iraq?)

Its clear, and I expect nothing less.. the Right blogsphere is going to support the administration. This administration, if you
read California Conservative, Michelle Malkin, NewsMax.com, etc., can do no wrong, can make no mistakes. So here’s the big question: Just how bad do things have to get before you’re willing
to admit anything is wrong?

Be specific. Tell me, for the record, how many Americans have to die before the Right finally admits that this Administration is incompetent, ignorant, and corrupt? Will it take the loss of another major American city? Will it take a dirty bomb? Will it take the destruction of our way of life?