In furtherance of the "passions rebellion": Why in the world does the so-called most powerful man in the world, our President, have the worst press agent imaginable?? I'm sure that he doesn't exactly have a press agent, but his approach to this whole Iraq war defense is miserable. If Reagan were President now, he'd be offering anecdotes every day about Iraqi people who now enjoy freedom that they never imagined possible, about new power plants, bridges, schools, etc. that have beenbuilt. About people who now can speak their own minds. He would have taken the incident where the shopkeepers shot back at the "insurgents" aka THUGS and worked it for weeks.

Instead, all we have is our lame-ass left wing press, that tells us how many people died every day, and tells us almost nothing more about anything in Iraq. The GI's who come back even complain that the press isn't getting the whole story out. A lot of Iraqi people wholehearedly support the troops, and cannot bear the thought of them leaving, and things returning to the past state of affairs. But we never hear about these people, like they don't even exist.

OK, off my soapbox... B-)

There was a piece on Lyn Nofziger on NPR when he died a couple of months ago. I think if you compare him to Scott McLellan you'll see why Reagan was perceived as so much better.

I remember that back in the Dan Rather era on CBS, several months into the Iraq war, CBS announced that they would be sending reporters into the countryside to talk to regular Iraqis about how things were going. It was to be a regular feature. It lasted about 3 times. My guess is that that's because all the Iraqis they talked to were happy.

Sorry I missed the piece on Lyn Nofziger, I'm sure that Reagan had great support.

I guess that it's not surprising that CBS quit their stories on the Iraqi people, it seems that the press has their own agenda, and it just rankles me no end when 1) the press is so biased 2) people don't seem to understand that they are receiving only a part of the story and 3) people just don't care. X-(

> 1) the press is so biased 2) people don't seem
> to understand that they are receiving only a part of
> the story and 3) people just don't care. X-(

1) The only bias the press should have is toward the people and not the powerful, if you get my drift. As long as they feel that every story should have an angle to it, they will continue to see readership/viewership/whatevership decline. Save the editorials for the editorial page.

2) Part of the problem with the press is that it's not independent with respect to itself - a few large companies control a great deal of the media outlets in the country, and that lack of diversity is telling.

3) Yep, most don't care that 1 and 2 are going on. They are happy sheeple. It's only when the shit hits the fan that anyone cares, and even then it's just for a day or two then back to Cold Case and American Idol.

The sheep mteaphor is so sorry and so correct.

I knowthat so many of the outlets are owned by a few mega corps, like Rupert Murdoch and Fox.

'it almost seems that certain areas, such as the everyday life improvements in Iraq, are the subject of an unspoken "hands off" agreement amongst the media.

Politicizing the news just ain't right.