How is it that the New York Times continues to underreport stories from Iraq that show that the coalition and Iraqis are doing pretty well two years following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein?
Simple.
It ignores the stories showing that there is good news.
That's how people don't get a full picture of events in Iraq, the Middle East, or even local news. When newspapers choose to avoid dealing with the sum of all news, you get only what the media outlets want you to see. And that version of events is a distortion of how things really are.
That's why websites by Chrenkoff and Instapundit are so valuable. You can see alternative news sources, often from foreign media outlets, that invite readers to make their own opinions on what is really going on. They find that the situation in Iraq was never as dire as the Times reported, and that underreporting of good news in Iraq continues to be a major problem.
How else can one describe the inability of the Times, through either willful or negligent means, to carry a story showing a major roundup of terrorists in Iraq, along with their weapons?
Wouldn't you think that a story with a lede of ... two days ago, Iraqi security forces captured 130 terrorists, tons of explosives, and three fully-assembled car bombs outside the Shiite city of Kerbala was a hot and newsworthy story?
Not the case at the Times. What is their reasoning for that?
No comments:
Post a Comment