From Stanley Kurtz:
Today, on the front page of The Washington Post, we see the third in a three-part series on roadside bombs in Iraq. The stories in this series have been centered on the top half of the page and highlighted in red (a device I don’t recall seeing before). Next to that is a huge headline about allegations of killings In Iraq by Blackwater. Below that is a headline that reads “Most in Poll Want War Funding Cut.” Meanwhile deep inside the paper, on page A14, we find the following article: “U.S. and Civilian Deaths Decrease Sharply in Iraq: American Military Credits Troop Influx.” True, nestled between the other screaming headlines on page one, there is a brief minuscule teaser for this far more positive story about Iraq. Yet the bias here is clear.If the top story is Iraq, then I don’t see how you can put those three stories on the front page, while burying the other one on page 14. Arguably, an actual report of substantial positive progress in Iraq is more important, and more dramatic, than any of those other stories. By rights it ought to have been headlined on page one. The Post seems more interested in fighting our political battle over the Iraq than in reporting on it. So if the poll data the Post is pushing reflects less support for the war than it might, that clearly has a great deal to do with the way biased coverage by the Post is skewing public perceptions of the war. I’m not saying all is well or that success is inevitable–far from it. Yet the relative placement of these stories by the Post is profoundly biased and misleading.
I mean, enough of this shilly-shallying about how full of shit Gleen is, right? Anyway, it’s been too quiet around here. (Link’s in the middle).
Sadly, this is my idea of fun.
Yea, I heard that report on our local newsradio station as I was driving to work this morning. After taking about 30 seconds to give the basics (50% reduction, etc.) they cut to another reporter who spent a minute explaining that it would take only ONE, ONE ATTACK for those numbers to go back to their former, muddy place.
Verne: “It’s great that there was no rain this week. My backyard is 50% less muddy!”
Freakin’ Annoying Neighbor: “That may be, Verne, but you and I both know that one little old thunder dumper will put your yard right back to its former muddy QUAGMIRE!!”
Verne: “Have I mentioned what a miserable, annoying sack of otter crap you are?”
Nope, no bias here, people. Move along, move along…
Who are you quoting here, Dan? Link?
I see this post as a bit of an experiment to see if mentioning John Cole brings out as many trolls as a mention of the Glens.
Merovign: shhhhhhh! You’ll ruin it!
I read where timmah felt that balloon-juice and John Cole was an example of level headed conservatism. I puked a little in the back of my mouth.
The quote is from Stanley Kurz at NRO, the link is in the center of the quote.
Counterintuitively.
Dan: Ooops! Damn the ham-hands!
This is why I don’t get invited to conspiracies anymore.
When are you chickennut winghawker jojoba roots finally gonna realise that 50% OF QUAGMIRE IS STILL !QUAGMIRE!
It’s the new math!
Stanley Kurtz: “Heart of Darkness, I presume?”
I say that success is inevitable at this point. That’s why the good news is on A14. If they had realistic hopes for a “stunning reversal” they would run the good news on page one.
Giggety-giggety.
Wouldn’t 50% of a quagmire be a demiquagmire or a hemiquagmire?
scenes from the WaPo break room…
QUAGMIRE!!!11!!
Actually, 50% of a quagmire is, technically, Detroit.
Keep that to yourself.
JD,
Sort of like how The View is an example of level headed masculinity.
Expect the expected, I see. Even the aphorisms about this kind of stuff are tautological. Absurd! The sage will be out of business at this rate.
‘You can’t armor your way out of this problem.’
The WaPo could take that as a metaphor for good news on the war, really.
“Sort of like how The View is an example of level headed masculinity.”
Well, it’s not nearly so masculine without cracklin’ Rosie.
Tell it to TNR.
TNR is dead to me.
#12 JD;
It would actually be a bi-quagmire.
Not that there’s anything WRONG with that!
Has TNR addressed their perfidy yet?
It galls me beyond belief that they are able to just wash their hands of this, given their active involvement in it. Can you imagine if it had been National Review instead of some leftwing rag?
“‘You can’t armor your way out of this problem.’”
It always worked for the A-Team!
Mikey NTH: Nah, they had tons of gunfire that never killed anyone and some explosions that also never killed anyone. Most confusing.
And if they’re smoking British cigarettes it could be a CENSOREDmire.
McGehee – So it would be a hemifagmire?
They only have 13 months left to convince us that we’re losing AND it’s hopeless.
What’s a Dodge pickup got to do with it?
I knew that sounded wrong. Maybe a demifagmire? A bifagmire?
Dan:
“The horror, the horror.”
Did you know that when a quagmire dries up, it looks like Afghanistan?
So, wait, is MediaMatters’ series of “misinterpretation slurs” a quagmire or a -gate?
I’m so confused.
If you think that’s bad, people who get their news from cable TV or from news radio may not hear about events in Iraq at all.
great link, Karl
Patrick, they always made a tank of some kind.
Plus the automatic weapons fire.
And the explosions.
And a car would always jump up in the air and corkscrew onto its roof.
You just don’t get quality entertainment like that these days!