While trying to at least not lose all contact with the world around me, I came across this item on Instapundit. Reynolds points out a Media Research Center CyberAlert that highlights a series of Hardball stories by Bob Arnot which portrays the situation in Iraq as being different than what we see in Al Jazeera, the BBC, and most US media.
“American G.I.s swarmed by friendly children, who want to speak English and love the Americans and their President for cleaning up their streets, providing clean water, opening the schools. They meet with cooperative village leaders, keeping the banks up and running, and get regular leads on who the bad guys are.”
Now, I’m sure that there are two sides to the story. The problem I have with most big media coverage is that they absolutely focus on the negative aspects of the story, and don’t give fair time to the positives. Then, when someone DOES highlight a positive event, they’re often portrayed as pro-Bush cheerleaders. Since there’s so little other positive coverage to provide a context for any positive story, the cheerleader accusations seem sensible to many.
Do the stories of our problems and setbacks in Iraq need to be told? Absolutely, they do. But why is it only hard-hitting journalism when bashing the US effort? Why is it only telling the whole story when focusing on the bad? Why is anyone who questions those who question our progress naive simpletons?
And I personally know liberals who insist that the media sucks up to the Bush administration.