[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The frustration may come down to a difference in philosophy about the media's role in Iraq: Ought it be a dispassionate reflection of the every day reality of Iraq, which is, in my opinion, better than what news coverage suggests? Or ought it point out the problems that need fixing that the CPA and military are not aware of or acting on? Should it be a voice for the people trying to reconstruct Iraq, or the people in that country who have no voice?

The answer, of course, is both. The White House and Pentagon have bully pulpits and enormous budgets to tell their story.

Not true. The White House and the Pentagon may have pulpits, but the "bully" pulpit belongs to the TV anchor man. So yes, journalism should be a voice for the people in Iraq who have no voice--that is an apt description of the poor grunt trying to do his job and stay alive--while journalism gives Saddam's acolytes what they are killing for--positive ink as a credible threat to the US military.

That network anchorman works for a company which is in business through the good graces of the United States government--in the form of the FCC. It is in the national interest that the portion of the truth which government-licensed broadcasters tell be fairly representative of "what's going on in Iraq." "What's going on in Iraq" is not limited to bad news--and a government-licensed broadcast journalist should be required to make that clear as a condition of retaining their license.

Reporters, however, make their reputations on stories that effect change. When resources force them to pick, the latter will nearly always triumph. In my opinion, that's about the way it should be.

In my opinion, that's a good reason to read a book instead of the front page of a newspaper.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Some of the negative coverage is generated by an older generation of reporters who cut their teeth on the Vietnam war experience.

This SOB employee of UPI fails to mention the glowing praise the North Vietnamese Communist had for the American press. IMO the Communists' "most trusted man in America," Walter Cronkite was the biggest liar and cost the lives of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Vietnamese. Without his lies the Communists may have been willing to look for a way out in 1968. There is no question in my mind the American left wanted a U.S. defeat not just and end to the war.

Same today except they want us to be "rescued" by an international coalition of their leftist comrades.

And they should tell the truth at all times.

Uh.. the UPI employee is talking about the military. What about reporters?

Reporters, however, make their reputations on stories that effect change.

"Truth? I don't need no stinkin' truth -- I just want to make a difference. That's why I are a journalist."