The MSM is frothing at the mouth about Bill O'Reilly and his vaulting ratings, sometimes drawing more viewers than all other head-to-head cable commentary channels in his time slots.

And he doesn't have to lie, blatantly. B O'R has his shortcomings, but compared to the ultra-left drivel of Keith Oderboy and the bland three liberals versus one conservative of Paula Z, O'Reilly rocks.

And that drives the agit-preppie WaPo/NYT pro-nutroot newsies daffy.

Gee too bad Laura Logan wasn't around during WWII ...

Too bad for the Nazi's and the Japanese, that is.

Why should we expect less than CNN's brand of Fair and Balancec?  Their sister station Al Jazeera has to share much of the same feed.

So, you see, CNN is really just being cost effective in their reporting.

“We’re there to be the watchdog for all sides.”

Slippery slope.

This assumes that first, everything put out by both sides would be propaganda designed to promote each side's point of view.

But how to apply such fairness?  Well, first, one must equivocate both sides to the same level of morality; the same level of rightousness of cause; and the same level of truth.

By doing this the MSM has to ignore everything that might have led up to any war.  Hitler, under these rules would be as rightous as Churchill advocating Britian's stand against the NAZIs.

Does this make sense?

No.

So, why are they doing it?  I believe that the MSM is only self-aggrrandizing their perceived power in the body poilitic.

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

" We’re there to be the watchdog for all sides."

911 was a criminal act, right? A crime that leveled 2 zip codes, put millions of people out of work, cast the nation into recession, decimated entire industries, wounded tens of thousands, and (oh yeah) killed 3 thousand people.

But, the dems tell us there is no war on terror, there is no Global War on Terror, and the war in Iraq is a situation. The terrorists are not terrorists-they're either: insurgents, loyalists, freedom fighters, militants, extremists, or anything BUT terrorists, right? Oh, and despite the fact that almost 100 AQ have been killed in the past 3 days in Iraq, Al Queda is not in Iraq (ignore that AQ in Iraq's leader admitted to having lost 4000 fighters in Nov 06, and MNF says 7000 since 10/05). Besides, Iraq has nothing to do with the situation against Al Queda

Delegitimize the war...doesn't that hurt the effort?

Legitimize the enemy...doesn't that disarm the effort?

Denying there's even a war...doesn't hurt the war-'cause there "is no war".

BDS knows no depths

Believer
I really distrust any outlet that uses foreign "reporters" especially re the war effort. Remember cnn was in Iraq at the behest of hussein and "reported" the news with his slant in order to keep that bureau open.

Why is it that the POTUS does not call for the JD to open an investigation on this matter? At least it might make the anti-victory folks in Congress take a stand. Like, rescind the vote to go to war! It wouldn't fly and it wouldn't be right and they would never do it.

I see where 70% of the public thinks the military is doing a good job and they respect the military. I am a little surprised it is not higher, but then we do not know what the skew was in the poll, likely as many dems as gops, and that would pull it down. Ask all gops, and it goes to 99%++++++, I figure.

I noticed that O'Reilly picked up on the Kurtz line from last Sunday about Germany bombing London, an absurd assertion by Kurtz.

The bigger issue is not about reporters in the field but rather about the newsrooms that decide what gets on the air and what doesn't. The two of them named reporter after reporter in that video. Well, it's the newsroom that decides what news airs, ya dummies. ("What ya got today, Lara?" "Bombs!" "Never mind, see you tomorrow.")

Last point. I know it's hard to hear the constant body counts, but why do we never hear the enemy's body count? The terrorists have been dying at at least 10x that pace. Does it matter to you all who is winning on that account?

Lara Logan needs to change her first name to Twit as what kind of watchdog is the full of bull dog speaking about?

Her placing uneditted al Qaeda video on her CBS blog of dead people on it?

How about watchdog Twit Logan barking at al Qaeda and seeing how long it is before she gets shot.

How about Twit Logan in all her reporting making the terrorists behave as she is the watchdog and we see how much peace there is with the media policing each side.

Twit Logan, go arrest people with your camera and call out, "STOP IN THE NAME OF MY CELL PHONE". That really will put shivers in al Qaeda.

For the record Twit Logan, THEE UNITED STATES IS and I repeat IS, the watchdog policing all sides and including itself.

You Twit Logan are nothing but a bra full of boobs hired to put a pretty C cup on globalist propaganda. You Twit Logan are nothing as in nothing.

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

I heard this phony rah-rah see we do report the other news too BS...

I have watched Lara for years, she fools only those who don't know her leftist reporting ninety-nine per cent of the time...

The networks just play the game of inserting a story here and there as what they see as positive news about the war and our fine military along with the Iraqi's that are doing well very seldom, especially when getting criticized.... the just need something to go back on and say...see you are wrong if you call us leftists leaning for the defeat of this war, only reporting negative news...we can pull this video/report out or this one...making it appear as if they are so called fair and balanced.

The obsession with Fox news on all other losing networks is only a boon to Fox, the fools.

Her story portrayed the American soldiers as heros.

In her discussion with Howard Kurtz that this thread is about, just prior to the part of the interview which is excerpted above, she describes how she got resistance from the U.S. military higher-ups in reporting this story.   They were reluctant because of political considerations.

Then after the story came out, the Iraqi government accused her of spreading pro-American propaganda, reporting a story designed to make the American soldiers look good, suggesting that the U.S. military was somehow behind it.  She defends herself, saying that the military did not put her up to it.  She is a serious, credible journalist and it's reasonable to believe her about this.

There are two other discussions here at this site about this story of Logan's.  The handful of comments in those threads (not nearly as many as in this one trashing her) say that that kind of story is exactly what the media needs to do more of.  But none of the comments credits Logan herself.

Lara Logan is a real journalist.   Her thoughts on reporting the war should be listened to intelligently.  Blindly trashing her is just silly.

Logan: "[H]uge numbers of American soldiers are dying over here."  No, a tiny number of American soldiers (3,500 or so soldiers, marines and a few sailors and airmen) have died in over four years of fighting.  In other wars, America has lost more soldiers in a single day of fighting.

So what are journalists supposed to do during war?

We know from candid MSMers that one of the common considerations when deciding to broadcast/publish a story, is whether the protagonists in a negative report are members of a minority.  Very often, stories fitting that description are canned, or if unavoidable, minimized and relegated to the end of the broadcast/publication.  In this way, the MSM grossly fails to be 'the watchdog of both sides" that Logan claims.