Centerfield

Well, that's an honorable point by Mr. Crawford. Yes, coverage of Iraq is generally biased toward the bad. But, ALL news is biased toward the bad. The good news on the homefront is usually some touching story that the local news folks cover with a cheery grin at the end of the evening news.

On the national and international level, good news is scarce. "No news is good news" is a cliche that actually holds a good chunk of truth.

This is all fine for me. They can say whatever they want.

What bothers me is that it's all politically motivated. I doubt Mr. Crawford or Katrina Vanden Huevel would be going out of their way to copy eachother's stories in their repsective magazines.

Let's face it. Good news about Iraq will be found in conservative magazines and much more of the bad will be in liberal magazines. Switch the letter on the Prez from R to D and the nature of the stories reverse. Neither side will ever admit that that's what they're doing....making it all the more predictabley boring.

I wish New America Foundation or some other non-partisan truly fair and centrist group would put out a news magazine to compete. All we have is the New Republic...and it's readership is falling. How predictable! No choir to preach to!

Good news about Iraq will be found in conservative magazines and much more of the bad will be in liberal magazines. Switch the letter on the Prez from R to D and the nature of the stories reverse.

Absolutely, John. Chrenkoff used to give us the other side of the picture, but quit to make a living. I'm glad someone has picked that up. I don't want to hear just one side. I wanna hear all sides. I was glad Crawford prefaced his research as he did, to make that clear.

Let's face it. Good news about Iraq will be found in conservative magazines and much more of the bad will be in liberal magazines. Switch the letter on the Prez from R to D and the nature of the stories reverse. Neither side will ever admit that that's what they're doing....making it all the more predictabley boring.

That really is kind of sad though, isn't it? I guess we'll have to used to it. There are exceptions of course. Pro-war liberals will usually print the good and the bad. Fox is pro-Bush by default, and the NYT is anti-Bush by default.

This is nonsense. Bush wants to argue that everything's fine, and we'd all be chipper and happy if the news would show some of the good things happening.

But you can't ignore the bad. The American people were told there was an imminent threat from WMD, and it turns out that's wrong. We haven't been given a convincing argument for why we should be supporting this "long war" - spreading Democracy? Doesn't fly because we allow many cartels and religious monarchies to remain, such as Saudi Arabia.

The situation isn't going to be good just because that's what we'd like it to be.

The situation isn't going to be good just because that's what we'd like it to be.

...or bad just because we are afraid, or pessimisitic, or hate the President, for that matter.

We haven't been given a convincing argument for why we should be supporting this "long war" - spreading Democracy? Doesn't fly because we allow many cartels and religious monarchies to remain, such as Saudi Arabia.

This argument is demonstrably false. Silly even. Taking on only what we can at any given time is simply a function of acknowledging that even America has finite resources. You are implying that the only way that "spreading democracy" could be a genuine policy is if we instantaneously tried to reform every nation and demanded that all insufficiently democratic nations change right away. That's utter madness, IMO.

While this vision of yours is ideologically pure, even a simpleton can see that it would never survive contact with the real world. You know the real world, the one we humans all live in, filled with real people with real motives and conflicting interests? The one where Americas resources are finite? That's the one where making big changes requires, time, patience, and steadfastness.

That's a lovely example of failing to read both post and thread before commenting, JP.

Rafique, you and John have the right of it. As I pointed out often in '04, we have been nurtured on the idea of a fair and impartial press, but that's an historical illusion promulgated by the press itself. Technology gave us the "national" broadcast news media and wire services, but also made them an oligopoly, with those controlling the technology controlling the news. The "national" media became somewhat of a groupthink elite.

Now, thanks to technology, that's breaking up. Which in turn is elading us back into the historical model of segmented news markets. In the historical model, segmentation was by geography. Now it's by other demographics, and the market economics is such that the consumer can pick and choose to match their "personal reality."

It's no coincidence that the rise in the wings coincides with the changing nature of the news media itself. Self-selection of media segment reinforces the "personal reality," leading to a highly selective worldview. And the politicians know that instead of playing to a somewhat monopolistic (and therefore consistently predictable) media, they can now play to their respective segments.

To a large extent we've come back around to the early days of Hearst, and a new yellow journalism.

It's unlikely that things would change if the president was a Democrat. As I recall, during most of Viet Nam, the president was a Democrat and I didn't see any great effort by the media to put a "happy face" on the war.

Brian,

Why is JP's vision more "ideologically pure" than the vision that America can reshape the world in something approaching our image? Why is it only the war that requires "time, patience, and steadfastness" rather than working in a slower, more pragmatic way? Isn't it possible that it's Bush's policy that's naive? And, isn't it possible that your valid statement about America having finite resources would have been an argument for not going to war?

I think Tully is more or less spot on here. I have worked in the media and most of the people who are broadcasters and Journalists that I have meet my be left of center, but that is the nature of the job, it’s no more surprising then to find out that business people are right of center. But what drives perceptions of bias is delivering to a demographic. Look at the ads … that will tell you to whom they are gearing the news. Ideology is a convenient dodge but do you honestly think that the people who run media businesses are not in business? I mean most big cities are predominantly liberal and the media reflects that. Niche media like cable TV and Radio can narrowcast, networks and big city dailies can’t. If they are selling hair color and fingernail polish expect big coverage of the million mom march, and heart rendering stories of the tragedy of young lives being cut down in the war. Selling SUVs and financial services? Expect a lot of flag waving and bullish economic reports. God just watch the Bull and Bears on Fox Saturday morning, it’s an orgy of flag waving (the Cost of Freedom anyone?), and bullish economic analysis (arguments over whether or not the Dow will head up into the trillions or the gazillions), it’s a joke.

Any reporter who would can or downplay a story because of there political leanings will be gone when the gaggle of other reporters swarm on the story. No one was downplaying Monica Lewinsky, they were all more then happy to pass along the juicy details. No one was against Bush in the aftermath of 9/11, the guy was beatified across the board and given a pass at almost every turn. No one in the country was going to question our brave CiC when he is fighting to protect us. Hell Phil Donahue got canned simply because he was liberal during that time (sure he was getting pounded by shows with a more conservative tilt, but in terms of the other programs on that channel he was one of the highest rated shows they had).

So the media has morphed from the vanguards of the public trust, to any other business where profits are more important then anything else. You simply cannot have objective media when you have to make a buck. In fact I would go so far as to say that even though it has the reputation of being “liberal” the New Hour on Public Broadcasting is the most balanced new show on TV. I’m not talking about commentary; I’m talking about hard news content. Take any story on PBS and put it against Fox or CNN and I think you will find that PBS is the most thoughtful and balanced news broadcast in the country. Of course if you’re a wild-eyed partisan you will think it’s biased, but then again if you’re a wild-eyed partisan everything is biased.

Marc, I called JP's vision ideologically pure in the sense that it insisted on a purity of vision without regard to our resources. I don't think the notion that even the most zealous crusader must pick his battles is a matter of ideology, but rather a matter of simple pragmatism. Even if you are wqilling to take on all comers, you probably have to take them on one at a time, right? So I don't think JPs point that we continue to have relationships with "impure" allies proves much of anything.

Why is it only the war that requires "time, patience, and steadfastness" rather than working in a slower, more pragmatic way? I didn't say that. It doesn't. I'm really just saying that "Rome wasn't built in a day." I'm just pointing out the obvious here: that all things worth having are worth working for.

Isn't it possible that it's Bush's policy that's naive?
Not in the same way as insisting we instantly transform our relationships with each and every ally to accord with our standards, all right away. Bush's statements have repeatedly declared the war against terrorism to be, of necessity, a long fight, and told us not to expect instant success. Might Bush's hopes turn out to have been proven unrealistic as well? Undoubtedly. This is why I have repeatedly characterized his Iraq war as a gamble.

And, isn't it possible that your valid statement about America having finite resources would have been an argument for not going to war? Absolutely. It was good one, and one that I and others raised. However, that ship has sailed, yes?

Rick DeMent: Excellent post.

Rick,

"Of course if you’re a wild-eyed partisan you will think it’s biased, but then again if you’re a wild-eyed partisan everything is biased."

very true. Now trying getting a wild-eyed partisan to believe or digest that statement. Good luck.

online dating has partnered with the online personals, itTakes2. online dating Service. http://online.dating-smarts.com/ online dating Services. online dating is an enormous and rapidly growing business.