Deinonychus antirrhopus

The media likes scandals, likes where the powerful are taken down, likes cases of blatant fraud and abuse (b/c they make nice, easy stories w/ clear good and bad guys).

In short, the media likes stories like Jayson Blair and Jack Kelley.

What, they haven't really focused much on that?

Gee, I wonder why?

B/c once they aren't covering stories like that much (24/7 coverage, in-depth reporting, weeks of it at a time), then one has to conclude that they're picking and choosing WHICH scandals, which good/bad guys to cover and which not to. Which, in turn, suggests that maybe, just maybe, there's more to it than just "Hey, we're always negative about our wars."

BTW, if they're generally good at reporting the bad stuff in wars, then you'd think that maybe, just maybe, they'd also have a long enough view (at least in their own archives) to note that this war is certainly no worse than others in our past, and arguably better (in terms of casualties, friendly, enemy, civilian and friendly fire; in terms of objectives; in terms of benefits and costs).

Wonder why that bit of perspective never seems to appear either.....

Hmm, I seem to recall (8th grade social studies classes) that the Spanish-American war was in no small part attributed to yellow journalism and propogandizing by people like WIlliam Randolph Hearst. "...In a classic example of the power of ownership, Hearst responded to illustrator Frederic Remington's request to return from a Havana that was quiet, 'Please remain. You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war.'"

Remember the Maine!

The media is biased toward serving a paying audience with the fare that audience already has a taste for.

So a news outlet in, say, Killeen Texas has a bias in favor of the miiitary that is not shared by a comparable outlet in, say, Cambridge Massachusetts.

The problem arises from the fact that a few essentially local news outlets serving VERY LARGE local audiences tend to drive the national discussion. So a story line that plays well in New York City or Austin or Los Angeles -- (and fails to sell as well in Binghamton NY, Lubbock, TX, or Modesto, CA) tends to set the tone in ALL markets.

Pouncer:

I'll buy that for local news. But whose biases run the networks?

Katie Couric came from the Washington, DC area. There's lots of military folks here. Did she originally have a more pro-military line earlier in her career?

Peter Jennings is from Canada. Do they all hate the US military up there? Dan Rather's from Texas. Surely, it's not just the San Antonio or Killeen folks there who like the US military?

The press covers stories that will get THEM coverage in the press. Reporting what went right in Iraq won't get it; too many of their colleagues have emotional investments in a repeat of Vietnam and the election of John Kerry. Reporting what went wrong will get them the coverage they crave, so that's what we get.

On the other hand, the insane over-coverage of Abu Ghraib and the absolute belief in the latest jihadi lie about a "wedding party" makes me wonder if the press really is on the other side.

Dan Rather made his name covering a hurricane (Carla or Camille - I don't remember which). Not a lot of opportunity to show political bias there. He went from obscurity as a local reporter (not even an anchor) to a national job, and on to fame.

DC is very liberal, despite the military presence. Canada is, of course, to our left politically. That's why they have all but disbanded their military, and sat out Iraq. So yes, the Major Media figures do tend to come from places left of center, at least with this small sample size.

??? I thought Rather's rise to national prominence was as a direct result of his (false) description of the (then-unseen) Zapruder film's showing JFK being forced FORWARD from the effect of the head shot?