Iraq: the other side of the story

[Gaviani]

Anthson, you made an interesting comment -- one that I viscerally want to agree with, but I'm not sure if that's because I find it eminently reasonable and true, or because it aligns with what I wish to believe, and people almost universally agree with statements that fall into that second category.

There is a bias out there. Not a conspiracy, but a genuine political bias that seems to have every media outlet marching in lockstep. That's the most frightening thing of all.

I think it is difficult to argue that the "mainstream media" are portraying the same image of Iraq -- namely, a country on the brink of civil war, where people are getting slaughtered regularly, turmoil, chaos, and so on. The obvious implication is the unspoken "...which is why we shouldn't have invaded in the first place." Most people construe this as an intentional attack on the current administration, or, in alternative, the Republican Party at large. I suppose there's a number of questions I'd like to answer before I can rationally construe it to be such, though I instinctively -want- to do so.

1) Are the reports in question -unnecessarily- couching their language in negative terms that are unreflective of the macrocosmic picture of the situation, or, in alternative, relevant to whatever story in specific they're covering? (I mention "unnecessary" because if the story legitimately calls for starkly negative words, that can't be considered bias -- it's simply reporting, then).

2) Is there a chance that the MSM are repeating the same message because media outlets are concentrated in so few hands, rather than simply a grassroots effort by journalists everywhere to repeat the same message? Could there be multiple causes to this apparent effect?

3) Are they all parroting this same message (if we stipulate they are, and I think you more or less have to do so, statistically speaking) because it happens to be correct, because they have an ulterior agenda, or both? Further, if it happens to be correct and accurate reporting...does it matter why they're doing it?

I don't mean to come off implying answers one way or another for most of these questions -- save the ones where I actually state my presupposed notion. That having been said, if we're seriously going to say the media are attempting to portray a certain picture of Iraq to advance a political bias, you have to demonstrate a number of things -- first of all, that "the media" have a clear and more or less unified picture (fairly easy to prove, I think), that said picture is not brought about by some equally plausible alternative cause (this is a bit more difficult), that said picture is done due to a political belief (probably on the easier side), and that the picture is incorrect, untrue, or incomplete due to that political bias.

I'm not a reporter, nor am I a soldier. I've never been to Iraq, nor, likely, will I ever be. I've never seen "the real situation" on the ground, nor do I have high enough clearance to see primary sources that might be direct enough in order to draw my own conclusions off the primary data. Left with that, all I (and about 99.99% of Americans) have to select from is whose arguments we like better, for whatever reasons. What I am, and where this whole post comes in, is someone who studies logic and argumentation with some affinity, and the proposition you advanced, Anthson, carries a number of questions that have to be answered in order to prove it. Is there a chance you're able to do so? There's nothing I'd like more than demonstrable evidence that substantiates my own suspicions -- specifically, that the MSM have backed a liberal agenda for decades, and are doing so here, again -- but I'm going to need to have those questions settled before I can completely sign onto that notion with my mind, rather than just my gut.