If the Bush administration gets attacked, the press will report it. But what if someone attacks the press? If the attack goes unreported, did it ever really happen?
Today General Ricardo Sanchez gave a speech to the Military Reporters and Editors’ annual conference, in which he criticized just about everyone associated with our effort in Iraq. The Washington Post’s headline was typical: “Former Iraq Commander Faults Bush.”
Actually, I don’t believe Sanchez ever mentioned Bush by name, although, as I say, he was critical of just about everybody. But it would be hard to tell from press accounts of Sanchez’s speech that he was mostly critical of…the press.
Go over there to read the section exerpted. Then consider how the trough-fed pigs of the press are reporting this.
Comment by happyfeet:
On the Washington Post account of Sanchez’s remarks, it says that “Staff writers Thomas E. Ricks in Washington & Peter Baker in Miami contributed to this report.†Thomas Ricks is deeply invested in Iraq being a Fiasco, which is the title of his book on the subject. He needs dead U.S. soldiers to hold his head up high, and the more stupid and senseless their deaths, the more better for Thomas.
Ricardo Sanchez just helped nudge Ricks’ book into another printing, and if Ricardo thinks he’s got some sort of insight into the role the media is playing in this conflict, he’s got some splainin to do.
Commenter Increase Mather states:
Still waiting for some organization in the MSM to inquire at to just what, exactly, Sandy Berger stuffed into his pants and socks, and why?
Your wish is IowaHawk’s command.
*Also criticises Bush Administration, represents Iraq War as “nightmare.”
Could there be a clearer example of self-indictment by the Wash. Post and other MAM than how they are treating this story?
Try MSM.
“Try MSM”
How about “Ministry of Truth”.
The MSM is reporting this the same way it reported the holocaust in the Ukraine in the 30s. It is reporting it the same it reported the massacres of Pol Pot in the seventies. It is reporting it the same way it reported the Tet offensive. It is reporting it the same CNN reported on Saddam’s torture chambers when CNN sold its soul for access.
Unfortuantely, the press is also reporting this story the same way every blogger on this planet (except for Bryan at Hot Air) is reporting the press’s invovlement in all the facist slaughters from Duranty to Pol Pot to Saddam (out lined in the first paragraph). Not at all. I understand what the press is up to. What are we? What are we? Shouldn’t the NRO being doing piece after piece on the reponsiblity of the press in the killings in the Ukraine and in Cambodia and in Iraq, and shouldn’t they be drawing parallels to what the press is doing today to American soldiers and innocent people in Iraq and all over the rest of the Middle East? Shouldn’t the Weekly Standard? Shouldn’t every big time right leaning blogger with an audience? Why haven’t they? Why won’t they. If I am totally off base. Tell me why. I’m interested to hear why. Bryan at Hot Air is willing to do it. Who has joined him?
Sanchez said that the press right now is a danger to democracy. Well what are the people who won’t point out how the MSM is a danger and why? What are the people that won’t point out what the MSM has done in the past and how that is strikingly similar to what it is doing now. What are they, besides reporters and bloggers?
How come you’re not blogging, corvan?
In this particular case, there should be some very apprehensive lawyers.
Suppose General Sanchez decides that it’s time to retire anyway, and that he is no longer obligated to be a nice guy. It is a violation of the UCMJ for a serving officer (it doesn’t apply to enlisted) to publicly criticize his civilian superiors. An unofficial word in the ear of one of his military superiors could easily result in the General being court-martialed for violating that rule, and his defense would be that he did not do so, and that the reporting which indicated that he did was false.
That defense, because true, would prevail and result in his exoneration — and the fact of the trial, coupled with the facts that would have to be discovered in order for it to go forward, would leave the General with a cause of action against the Press which they could not defend on First Amendment grounds because they lied about a matter of fact and therefore could not hide under the excuse of relating opinion.
Talk about fun to watch. For that one I’d buy myself a popcorn machine.
Regards,
Ric
These are consequential times. Nearly two hundred thousand young people have stepped forward to face the forces of tryanny thousands of miles from their homes and families. Bloggers and journalists can’t be moved to confront… reporters. That’s all I have to say. I really think it would be beneficial to me, this thread, journalism and maybe blogging, for some one to tell me why and how I’m wrong. Not ignore all this but tell me where I am wrong.
Whether I blog or not doesn’t matter much, really in the long run. I’m as dumb as a pile of rocks. The world will live just fine w/o my wisdom. The question is why are people who have developed audiences, who have developed relationships with those in the MSM, who have garnered some fame and money on all this blogging stuff not reporting on this? I don’t matter one bit.
I just think that by singling Bryan out as the only one who’s being heavily critical of the press, you’re overlooking a LOT of people, not least the proprietor of this blog.
um, Ric, I think he is retired. Wikipedia says Nov. ’06. outside link here (scroll down to “in related events”)
Agreed. Jeff is as critcal of the press as anyone. And do not take this at all as a criticism of Jeff. But simply being critical of the press. I.e. “Gosh look what the press said that wasn’t true today, how about that? But don’t worry, once we get some more conservatives in the news room boy that we all striaghten up one day. By the way aren’t all those New York Times reportes in Iraq heroes, David Brooks? Rich Lowry isn’t the press sometimes right? Yes sir, we may be a tad misguided sometimes but we’re looking out for people and we have Rich and David to amke certain it’s all on the up and up. All we need are a couple more folk just like them.”
Is a differnt thing from laying out exaclty what the press did in the Ukraine in Cambodia, in Iraq, in the rise of Arafat etc. and coming back to it to illustrate what the press is doing today. Shouldn’t that be done too, and shouldn’t it be done every time we see a piece like this in the press? It’s become very clear the press has no conscience and little shame. It does understand the bottom line. If people understood (advertisers in particular) that the press was aomng the bigger genocide enablers of the 21st century they would be a little less likely to toss money their way, wouldn’t they? Shouldn’t they. Does anyone think that silence will change things?
Oh and how many of the big time bloggers have stepped forward and sited Bryan’s piece on Duranty and nam at HA in response to the Aremenian genocide. Lot’s and lots of them?
I guess what I’m asking is have we decided that being part of the filter is more imporant than moving the filter aisde and getting the story? I think we have. I think we need to talk about it.
Where’s the link? Can’t read everything, you know, and we’ve been a bit distracted with SCHIP.
Here it is. http://hotair.com/archives/2007/10/12/when-genocides-collide/ And anyone else that’s interested in the Vietnam era Google Peter Arnett. If you look hard enough you’ll find stories about the North Veitnamese spies he (and other distinguished award winning and still respected journalists) worked with. Also google Walter Duranty. He got a Pultizer for a few million deaths. The NYT still claims it. Marion Jones gives back her medals and goes to prison, the Times keeps Duranty’s Pulitzer.
Maggie,
Yeah, I knew that — but for flag-grade officers the issue of “retirement” is more than a little fuzzy.
The law is honored much more in the breach than in the observance, which I personally think is a good thing despite the fact that it puts J. F*ing Kerry in the Senate instead of in Leavenworth. If it were used to accuse Gen. Sanchez, one possible defense would be that he was retired and therefore not subject to it; it’s simply a matter of which defense he would offer, and that would be a matter of choice. If he chose to defend on the facts rather than on jurisdiction it would generate, ahem, side effects.
Regards,
Ric
Corvan – all jokes about what you’re smoking aside, this subject is not exactly a stranger to blogs. Read around a bit, you will find many thousands of posts on hundreds of blogs about the press’ complicity in mass-murder. I mean, why do you think NYT is so often referred to as the New Duranty Times so often, ’cause no one knows?
Just because EVERYONE doesn’t talk about YOUR subject ALL the time doesn’t mean people are ignoring you, it means you’re playing Johnny One-Note.
That being said, the press corps are mostly like maggots – they only touch unhealthy, decaying news, and leave healthy, important news alone.
The biggest problem, with regard to press complicity, is that the press corps itself has abandoned it’s early cannibalism for a sort of tribalism. In the Great Old Days, the press still wasn’t very good, but at least they would call each other out when they did wrong (and sometimes at random). Now it’s almost like some kind of fraternal organization, brotherly oaths and secret handshakes included.
Imagine how different the world would be if WaPo had savaged NYT for their whitewash of Soviet slaughter. The press corps is a watchdog on everybody but themselves. And leftists, of course, but I repeat myself.
On the Washington Post account of Sanchez’s remarks, it says that “Staff writers Thomas E. Ricks in Washington & Peter Baker in Miami contributed to this report.” Thomas Ricks is deeply invested in Iraq being a Fiasco, which is the title of his book on the subject. He needs dead U.S. soldiers to hold his head up high, and the more stupid and senseless their deaths, the more better for Thomas.
Ricardo Sanchez just helped nudge Ricks’ book into another printing, and if Ricardo thinks he’s got some sort of insight into the role the media is playing in this conflict, he’s got some splainin to do.
we’ve been a bit distracted with SCHIP
By the same people who declaim that sufficient sacrifice has not been asked of Americans in a time of war.
We need to face the fact that much of the MSM is corrupt. Whether they are protecting their own point of view because they have published books, or they are pushing the Democrat Party line it amounts to the same thing. They are corrupt and can’t be trusted.
Still waiting for some organization in the MSM to inquire at to just what, exactly, Sandy Berger stuffed into his pants and socks, and why?
They are an incurious lot aren’t they?
happyfeet:
By the same people who declaim that sufficient sacrifice has not been asked of Americans in a time of war.
If ever there was a coldly calculated disingenuous argument, this is it. Especially when it comes less than two sentences away from a “grim milestone” pronouncement.
I’ve decided my response from now on will be,”how bout you shut your yap and ‘sacrifice’ your asinine opinion”
Ok, I’m Johnny one note. My shame at having asked right leaning bloggers to point out not only Duranty’s malfeasance but that of Slaisbury makes me wish to crawl under the bed and never show my johnny one note face ever again. I am skewered, and completely defeated.
I am also waiting for a right leaning blogger other than Bryan to really push thses stories, not just about the NYT but the whole press. Further I’m waiting for Hugh Hewitt to ask a press maven or two who appears on his show about them. Tossing off the “Duranty Times” in a comment section just isn’t is going to help matters much. what is common knowledge to you, ins’t common knowledge ot the rest of the world (Something Durany was counting on when he covered up Stalin’s crimes, and something I fear the rest of the press counts on when they shamelessly enhance the fortunes of Al Qaeda now.) Bringing some focus to these matters, and just as much attnention to them as we brought to the SCHIP stuff will. Do you oppose that Merovign? Do you oppose right leaning bloggers brigng the same amount of passion and effort to reporting of Duranty’s crimes and Arnett’s complicity and Salisbury’s antics that they brought to SCHIP and Schiavo? If so, why?
No, we don’t oppose that, Corvan. It’s just that a lot of us are focused on the distortions of the media right now. Asking the media to apologize for Duranty is like . . . well, asking the Turks to apologize for what they did to Armenians. Write something, and I may post it.
Which is what I was referencing here, coincidentally.
Corvan –
Bloggers can write about whatever they want to write about. And they will.
I think running around lecturing people as to what they NEED to say is counterproductive and silly, at best.
I don’t oppose people focusing on the many and varied crimes of the sick and twisted press corps. I do oppose people putting on their toy field marshall hat and demanding it.
I also have a problem with people who try to make every discussion thread about what THEY want it to be about.
Especially since you start off lamenting how nobody but the bold and noble Bryan has the GUTS to address the issue, which is what they used to call Just Plain False.
Have you even LOOKED at Newsbusters? You might enjoy it.
Corvan, I don’t think there’s been a single more damning post done anywhere by anyone about the press’s coverage of the war than Karl’s The Big Picture(s).
I don’t think anything better illustrates corvan’s point than the unremitting unseriousness of NRO’s Media Blog.
There’s pages and pages and pages of this sort of thing there.
I ran a Google query on “Walter Duranty” and “Bryan Preston” and got some links to his pieces but also a number of links to other sites that link to Bryan’s pieces.
In a cursory scan of the top hit for those terms I don’t see anything resembling a central repository of Bryan’s Duranty exposes. That would be very helpful to anyone who wants to help bring more attention to the subject.
We could do that sort of aggregation in the pub, McGehee.
How many trips have Frank Rich, Bob Herbert and MoDo taken to Iraq to support the troops?
Which I mean, that’s a good idea.
Here’s how a project like that could work. In the pub, you’ll notice that author are listed to the left alphabetically. If someone were to want to create an enduring archive of material on a certain subject, you could create an account under a name like this:
– Walter Duranty
The subject related aggregations would then fall at the top of the author’s list, and it would be easy enough to post a link elsewhere to the aggregation of the related posts. (like this. People who wanted to work on a project like this could just share the password through email. Obviously there’s lots of other ways to do the same thing, but this would be a simple way for people here to get together and collaborate and have an enduring work product that doesn’t get buried. Just a thought.
I agree, wit happy feet on this point (what fresh hell is this) Rick Sanchez comes from my neck of the woods. He was
a little excitable in his local slot in
Miami; exhibiting the aspects of a right wing version of Geraldo. Then he was promoted to a noon slot at CNBC, appeared zoned out like a defendant in the Stalin purge trials; ended up demoted/prmoted ? to CNN, where he seems to swallow all the left wing talking points.
Agreed I’m a jerk. What I’m begging for here is for the blogosphere and the right leaning press to expend one tenth the effort on this subject that they do on Fred’s wife’s bust line. I would also love to see them ask how this history of corruption on the press’s behalf seems to relate to the current coverage in Iraq.
If that makes me a totally reprehensible asshole in your eyes, I don’t care. If you want to play both sides of the street, and call the media corrupt, but call anyone who asks why we can’t bring that corruption to the attnetion of anyone out side of a comment section in the middle of a blog, I don’t care. That’s your business.
I think it should see a lot of light around the blogosphere. I think that until it does we’re going to get the same old same old from the press forever more. I don’t care what you think that makes me. I don’t care how interested you are in what I’m smoking. I don’t care what you call me. I just want to know. Do you honestly think this subject has been covered enough? If you do you should have the courage to say it. And stop calling me names.
What I’m begging for here is what Happyfeet is proposing. Do you have an objection to that?
As far as Karl goes I agree with you, Dan, one hundred percent. It was a terrific piece and it was widely linked. But I think it is a start not an ending, you know what I mean?
– Walter Duranty
oops – I had an unclosed tag –
– Walter Duranty?
the hyphen is the key part there, and I think even
– Walter Duranty – Media Complicity
would take as well.
Point is, this way we could have cool stuff that lived as something other than stuff in the comment section in the middle of a blog. Should ask JG first of course, and it’s just an idea.
And it is a terrific idea, and Karl’s piece on media coverage in Iraq should be linked in there as well. And yes some of the Newsbusters stuff and yes, Bryan’s piece as well, assuming Merv doesn’t pop a ventricle at the thought, and there are some others as well. But someone along the line Hewitt, and the NRO and the Standard have to grab this and work on it. Assuming they think the suppostion that the media has traditionally coddled the worst sort of dictators and are again is right.
If Jeff is ok and you set it up, I’ll be happy to contribute where I can.
cool
I was expecting to find more, but a search of Hot Air for the name “Walter Duranty” turned up these two posts:
* Whose Side Are They On?
* When genocides collide
If there are more there that can be indexed in this project, someone with more time and patience will need to find them.
If I didn’t know better, I would swear it sounds like Sanchez is questioning the patriotism of the MSM. Usually they howl when you do that.
Here’s Sanchez’s comments about the media but not in those annoting capital letters that Instapundit links to… I won’t blockquote cause it’s long already.
Almost invariably, my perception is that the sensationalistic value of these assessments is what provided the edge that you seek for self agrandizement or to advance your individual quest for getting on the front page with your stories! As I understand it, your measure of worth is how many front page stories you have written and unfortunately some of you will compromise your integrity and display questionable ethics as you seek to keep America informed. This is much like the intelligence analysts whose effectiveness was measured by the number of intelligence reports he produced. For some, it seems that as long as you get a front page story there is little or no regard for the “collateral damage” you will cause. Personal reputations have no value and you report with total impunity and are rarely held accountable for unethical conduct.
Given the near instantaneous ability to report actions on the ground, the responsibility to accurately and truthfully report takes on an unprecedented importance. The speculative and often uninformed initial reporting that characterizes our media appears to be rapidly becoming the standard of the industry. An Arab proverb states – “four things come not back: the spoken word, the spent arrow, the past, the neglected opportunity.” Once reported, your assessments become conventional wisdom and nearly impossible to change. Other major challenges are your willingness to be manipulated by “high level officials” who leak stories and by lawyers who use hyperbole to strengthtn their arguments. Your unwillingness to accurately and prominently correct your mistakes and your agenda driven biases contribute to this corrosive environment. All of these challenges combined create a media environment that does a tremendous disservice to America.
Over the course of this war tactically insignificant events have become strategic defeats for America because of the tremendous power and impact of the media and by extension you the journalist. In many cases the media has unjustly destroyed the individual reputations and careers of those involved. We realize that because of the near real time reporting environment that you face it is difficult to report accurately. In my business one of our fundamental truths is that “the first report is always wrong.” Unfortunately, in your business “the first report” gives Americans who rely on the snippets of CNN, if you will, their “truths” and perspectives on an issue. As a corollary to this deadline driven need to publish “initial impressions or observations” versus objective facts there is an additional challenge for us who are the subject of your reporting. When you assume that you are correct and on the moral high ground on a story because we have not responded to questions you provided is the ultimate arrogance and distortion of ethics. One of your highly repected fellow journalists once told me that there are some amongst you who “feed from a pig’s trough.” If that is who I am dealing with then i will never respond otherwise we will both get dirty and the pig will love it. This does not mean that your story is accurate…
All are victims of the massive agenda driven competition for economic or political supremacy. The death knell of your ethics has been enabled by your parent organizations who have chosen to align themselves with political agendas. What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our servicemembers who are at war.
My assessment is that your profession, to some extent, has strayed from these ethical standards and allowed external agendas to manipulate what the American public sees on TV, what they read in our newspapers and what they see on the web. For some of you, just like some of our politicians, the truth is of little to no value if it does not fit your own preconcieved notions, biases and agendas.
It is astounding to me when I hear the vehement disagreement with the military’s forays into information operations that seek to disseminate the truth and inform the iraqi people in order to counter our enemy’s blatant propaganda. As I assess various media entities, some are unquestionably engaged in political propaganda that is uncontrolled. There is no question in my mind that the strength our democracy and our freedoms remain linked to your ability to exercise freedom of the press – I adamantly support this basic foundation of our democracy and completely supported the embedding of media into our formations up until my last day in uniform. The issue is one of maintaining professional ethics and standards from within your institution. military leaders must accept that these injustices will happen and whether they like what you print or not they must deal with you and enable you, if you are an ethical journalist.
*annoying*
Yo happyfeet. Pam Anderson meets a thesaurus.
I don’t get it. Pamela loves synonyms as much anyone I’m almost sure. You mean Sanchez’z remarks above seem maybe kind of airheaded but with vocabulary words? I didn’t think they were particularly profound it’s just that the media didn’t see fit to report them is the deal.
John Burns has been good at the Times, as has C.J. Chivers. Gettleman, Wong,
Berenson, Cave, Von Zierbauer, et al;
Not so much. I’m conflicted about Galloway, because of his role in We Were Soldiers and some genuinely touching stories such as of Gator Outposts’s men, rtc. But he’s become
this Johnny One note against the policy itself. Previously he argued for redeployment to Kuwait; but now he
saids it’s too late; because of the Iranian infiltrated supply lines.But Iran is not a problem. He’s one who quotes the atrocity of Abu Ghraib almost with every column;he’s not too keen on Gitmo either. He’s taken to quote some obscure Mencken passage which supposedly ‘predicts’ the coming
of the Bush administration, like that fake Nostradamus paper.
“Woe is us, Abandon all hope those who
enter here
I thought Zakaria was completed overrated when he was doing the war thing.
*completely*
[…] Dan Collinshas a new post up on a misleading Washington Post report on a speech by General Ricardo Sanchez, mostly critical of the media, but headlined by the WaPo as critical of Pres. Bush. […]
Though it should show up as a trackback, I have some more on Ricks for corvan at the Pub.
Corvan – what I’ve been saying is that you’re right about the press, AND an asshole, and the latter does perfectly ZIP in aid of “exposing” the former.
Take a fucking chill pill, freaking out isn’t helping anyone.
If you want a blog dedicated 100% to exposing media complicity in mass-murder, feel free to start one, rather than demanding everyone else do it for you.
I just don’t see your freakadelic defensiveness and preemptive friendly fire winning a lot of friends.
Oh, and if I didn’t make it clear the last fourteen times, I’m emphatically not against exposing more media thuggery, so stop claiming I am. Unless you’ve just stared into that media abyss so long you can’t help yourself.
I am not against a biased media, so long as they publicly announce their bias. Really, America had that for most of its history most famously called ‘yellow journalism’ but also existing in newspapers put out by political parties, labor unions, private charity organizations, and, yes, large scale media moguls who made no issue about their point of view. That allows for an individual to read the news coming from that source and to KNOW that it has a bias to it.
I applaud that! Heartily! It shows that one is willing to stand up for their beliefs, advocate them, and be held publicly accountable to them. That is transparency in media: putting forth what your own viewpoints are and then reporting on things. Works, too.
I detest any media outlet that puts out biased news, advocacy pieces cloaked in ‘public interest’ language and any reporting that goes solidly against legal bounds this Nation holds to not only internally, but via treaties made. It is this latter type that I see prevalent in the last 30 years of the 20th century and it tries to continue on to this day. By cloaking advocacy in purported ‘unbiased opinion’ or ‘unbiased reporting’ the public conversation is becomes slanted. Further, when organizations refuse to even report the *facts* in a given happening, but make them up or just don’t report them, that deprives the public of knowledge necessary to make informed decisions about themselves and, in a democracy, about their Nation.
The press has had blatantly bad stories all the way back to the sinking of the Titanic, plus many other things seen in a 1999 retrospective by John Leo at CJR:
Believe me, if the media can’t figure out on the day after it is known that a ship sunk that it has, indeed, sunk, then there is little point in asking if it can figure out what is going on in Bosnia, Kosovo, or East Hotdogistan.
Even worse is when multiple organizations put out the exact, same spin on a storyline and ignore the majority of a speech to pick and choose just those parts they like, and ignore the ones they don’t. Even when page space was costly, papers didn’t do that, although many did relegate speeches to space next to the obituaries. By deciding which excerpts are important and which are not, those making columns have the ability to shift emphasis from where the speaker placed it and to where the reporter wants it. Fine and dandy if you are up front about your pre-existing biases. Less good when you purport to have ‘non-partisan’ views and then heavily slant the reporting. And when the entire speech is not published, how can the public find it in the public record? Today we have outlets to give us that directly, but 15 years ago? Wait for the book to come out.
As we no longer have to wait for books and memoirs and such to get original, full length speeches, attempting to twist words and speeches to fit a partisan and biased view stands out clearly. When I read the entire speech by Gen. Sanchez I see a broad indictment not only of the Media but the hyperpartisan nature of politics that no longer has the President *and* Congress doing their jobs. Attempting to spin *that* for partisan gain puts one in the category of ‘being the problem’ as that speech is addressed to *you*.
Today we now have a world where the foundations of information are shifting away from ‘gatekeepers’: the gates are still around but the fences are coming down. Those that report the news now find that they are not alone, and that multiple different channels of news now available serve as means of cross-check and analysis against them. Further, by referencing ethics statements for individual media groups (unless, like TNR, they don’t post them, indicating they have none), and then examining how these media groups actually back or do not back those same standards, individuals can now see, directly, where the concern of an individual media organization *is*. Politicians are finding out that they cannot say one thing to one group and the opposite to another just hours apart or, now, decades apart. Similarly media organizations are finding that out, also, and their biases over the long haul show up clearly and plainly given that sort of background.
The MSM is fighting a losing battle of unstated bias and partisanship, and that has lost it broad trust with the public as more and more of that bias is cited. That same public is now utilizing those tools to look at politics and see it as failing the Nation, and can find few that will sustain them or support their particular concerns and needs. That is the two party system unable to adapt to the modern world and seeking, instead, to make everything hyperpartisan to a degree unknown just 20 years ago.
King Canute did, indeed, order the tide back. Didn’t stop the tide.
Gen. Sanchez is pointing to the King Canutes and saying that we are ill served by them across the board. That in a democracy we dare not become so partisan as to not even look to the long term safety and security of the Nation. Because you soon have *no Nation* when you do that. This late 20th century poltical and media system is in its death throws and is looking to take liberty, freedom and democracy down with it as, like a petulant child, it turns destructive at every turn.
We cannot afford that from our politicians or our media. And yet that is, exactly, what we are getting. The 20th century is over. Time to start adapting to the 21st or it will destroy us.
I tried watching the Sunday morning talk shows, and I did not see any mention or even casual reference to the blistering Sanchez leveled at the media. It is like it never happened. Yet, they all talked about Sanchez like he was some sort of expert, which in reality means that he is considered an expert by the media because he did not agree with Bush’s policies.
So, I cannot be accused of not giving them a chance, they were afforded every opportunity to report on Gen. Sanchez’s comments fully and accurately. Outisde of the right side of the world, have Sanchez’s comments been reported fully and accurately by any part of the MSM ?
Eric Shawn read some of Sanchez’s best digs at the media around 1145 Eastern on Fox News Live Weekend.
ha ha, Faux News doesn’t count Cannonneer No. 4!