Lefty slanted media bias continues in Iraq reporting....

[Bobby Eberle says this far better than I ever could. In his GOP USA column today he covers General Richard Sanchez's comments that were taken out of context by the press ... they reported only the part they wanted to highlight ... and ignored the rest. Here is the rest.]

In the New York Times and AP stories, there is no mention at all of the first part of the general's speech. In the Washington Post report, the entire story is devoted to Sanchez's comments on the current military situation in Iraq and biographical data on the general. Only the very last paragraph of the story mentions Sanchez's comments about the media.

What the media chose not to cover was scathing indictment of their practices and philosophy in covering the war. The general said:

As all of you know I have a wide range of relationships and experiences with our nation's military writers and editors. There are some in your ranks who I consider to be the epitome of journalistic professionalism -- Joe Galloway, Thom Shanker, Sig Christensen, and John Burns immediately come to mind. They exemplify what America should demand of our journalists -- tough reporting that relies upon integrity, objectivity and fairness to give accurate and thorough accounts that strengthen our freedom of the press and in turn our democracy.

On the other hand, unfortunately, I have issued ultimatums to some of you for unscrupulous reporting that was solely focused on supporting your agenda and preconceived notions of what our military had done. I also refused to talk to the European Stars and Stripes for the last two years of my command in Germany for their extreme bias and single minded focus on Abu Gharaib.

The general noted that many words and phrases have been used to describe him such as "dictatorial and somewhat dense," "not a strategic thought," "liar," "doesn't get it," and "the most inexperienced LtG." Sanchez blasts the media, saying:

In some cases I have never even met you, yet you feel qualified to make character judgments that are communicated to the world.

My experience is not unique and we can find other examples such as the treatment of Secretary Brown during Katrina. This is the worst display of journalism imaginable by those of us that are bound by a strict value system of selfless service, honor and integrity.

Almost invariably, my perception is that the sensationalistic value of these assessments is what provided the edge that you seek for self aggrandizement 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.

Sanchez told the media members in the audience that "your unwillingness to accurately and prominently correct your mistakes and your agenda driven biases contribute to this corrosive environment."

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 respond to questions you provided is the ultimate arrogance and distortion of ethics.

One of your highly respected 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.

The general made other comments about media ethics and the role of reporters, and I encourage you to read his entire speech. The media chose to only report on half of it in a blatant display of media bias. They are motivated by an agenda that seeks to destroy certain people and political entities rather than simply reporting the facts.

With decreasing circulation of newspapers such as the New York Times and decreasing rates of cable outlets such as CNN and MSNBC, perhaps we can hit them in the bottom line. We are not looking for "pro-conservative" reporting. We are simply looking for reporting.

Ward: "Support the Troops? Lefties don't even support their own children!"

Ward picks up comments from Daily Kos about a lefty whose child joined the Marines two years ago -- "brainwashed" -- without a mind of his own, so his parent says, concluding that he has gone "from intelligent to indoctrinated."

Is that what the libs mean by tolerance, inclusiveness, understanding? Good lip service ... until someone does not agree with them.

Read the whole thing here.

Have you noticed? The lefty lib bloggers are completely silent today on President Bush's visit to Iraq. The man cannot do anything right, as far as they are concerned. Is this what they mean by "supporting the troops"? The troops are thrilled to have their Commander-in-Chief visit ... and the libs are silent. What hate-filled names will they have for those of us who are proud to see him there, proud to have him as our President, and grateful that he has kept this country safe the past six years?

This is no liberal actor ... he supports Bush, war, troops

Wow. Here's an interview with some common sense spoken by a Hollywood actor ... one with strong convictions about our role in Iraq. Radar.com interviewed actor Jon Voight shortly after a visit to Walter Reed Hospital to visit with U.S. troops wounded in Iraq. He supports President Bush and Vice President Cheney, he supports the war in Iraq, and he believes this is a religious war that affects the entire globe.

This war is not Vietnam, he told Radar.com.

"While you might not hear people say, 'I don't support the troops,' the country and the media on the whole are increasingly caustic and critical of the president and Iraq. ... It's sad for me. The attack on George Bush I find to be reprehensible. From the beginning it was politically motivated, and it's been very successful, the disrespect for our president and for our country and for our government. I have a great regard for our government. We have all sorts of checks and balances that are afforded to us by our constitution. We have a lot of wonderful hardworking people in the government. Once it gets to be partisan, it takes the energy in another direction."

Of his visit to Walter Reed, Voight said:

" ... the increase in troops that has been recommended by the president, [the wounded troops] say anybody who's over there knows the value of backup and we should be behind this. When you're out in that situation in danger, you want to know you've got backup. Only one guy said he wasn't going back to Iraq, and he had been wounded a couple times. But all the other guys wanted to go back. One young woman, a very attractive young woman, had her leg amputated. But she says she's going to find a way to get back into it. She just reupped and she said they would find something for her to do."

Saying that he agreed with the Patriot Act, Voight added:

"We know that Hezbollah is here; we know there are cells from different terrorist organizations that are here and operational and that there are others waiting too. So listen, it's a serious business. It's wartime, guys. Because we don't have a continuous attack on our shores, we can get complacent. We've got to all be alert now, we've got to be a part of it and be supportive of our troops for sure."

As far as the MSM and democrats politicizing those in leadership in the Bush Administration:

"It all gets distorted. Rumsfeld was maligned and villainized; he's a hardworking guy, doing the best he can. He's got such a huge responsibility, and if he makes the slightest error, people's lives are at stake. So, you don't think he carries a big weight? He does. Now they've gotten rid of Rumsfeld. Well okay, maybe he didn't have the answer, maybe there was a fresh answer required. But you've got to respect the guys who are out there, working hard as public servants. These guys are good guys. People don't like the war because we don't seem to be winning it. And these people think that if we just walk away everything will be fine, but that's not the case. "

Read the entire interview here.


H/T United Conservatives of Virginia