I think it would be rewarding to start a novel new News Service...one that actually reports the FACTS of the day's news rather some boss man's personal political take on it.
For a while, I believed in MSNBC. But it seems that they are now endeavoring to be the anti-FNC, presenting us with the liberal version of "fair and balanced". This is especially true during prime time (Keith O., bless his heart, is trying wayyyyy too hard to be the anti-Bill-O. Sadly, it is getting to where I can hardly watch either of them).
As you know I am both (1) a journalist by trade and training, and (2) a political left-leaning moderate. As such, I am frustrated to no end by the bias, in one direction or the other, being offered up these days by the news organizations under the guise of "journalism".
So, let's change that. If anyone feels like writing news stories, let me know. We can easily get started on the Internet.
To begin with, I have 2 rules that will already set ours apart from the other news organizations: (1) The situation in Iraq would never be referred to as "a war"; and (2) the adversary would never be referred to as "the enemy". As a consequence, we would never use terms like "victory" either. If there's no war and no enemy, there can't be a victory or a defeat.
Bush's illegal invasion and occupation was NEVER a "war" against an "enemy". It was an abuse of power and a misuse of the U.S. military to pursue the ideological mission of a small group of hawkish, narrow-minded and, as it turns out, pretty stupid intellectuals--affectionately known as The Neocons.
Reporters working for my network would use a whole new set of terms and expressions. The "war" in Iraq would be referred to as the "situation" in Iraq. The goal would be not "victory" but "success". The trouble-makers would ALWAYS be defined by their sect: Sunnis, Shia, Kurds, etc. So a news story would never simply say that "15 people were killed by a suicide bomber". It would say "15 people were killed by a right-wing Sunni suicide bomber". Or by "a Shiite militiaman". Or by a "jihadist loyal to Hezbollah". Or by "an al Qaeda operative". Etc.
Clearly, we are not up against "an enemy" in Iraq or even, for that matter, in the so-called "war" on terrorism. Rather there is a vast assortment of extremists, intolerant kooks and whack-jobs hailing from an assortment of places and philosophical backgrounds. About the only things they have in common are the Quran and a hatred for us and for Israel. But GWB is supposed to emerge out of this as a victorious war-time President, right? So naturally they are going to paint this as a "war" with an "enemy" to be "defeated". We can be stupid and accept that, or we can take the blinders off and see things as they really are.
We, the people of the west, need to understand when we pick up the morning newspaper and read of violence and death WHO it is that is committing these crimes. We need someone to keep a scorecard so we have some idea of who is friend and who is foe. Does any American really know who he or she should be rooting for over there?
The right-wing Sunnis? Well, that would be Osama bin Laden--nope we don't like him. The left-wing Sunnis? That would be Saddam and his Bathhists. Obviously, that's out. What about the right-wing Shia? Like the Iranians? Or like Muqada al-Sadr, the militia leader? No, they're all anti-American creeps, so we can't support them. Okay, how about the left-wing Shia? You mean like that neo-con ass-kissing snake, Chalabi? Welp.....that pretty much leaves the Kurds and the Turkmen. And they're bouncing around on their camels trying to revolt against whatever Arabs happen to be in charge at the moment.
Get my point? We Americans are never going to understand this "situation" and what to do about it when the only news reporting we get is from news organizations that are either clueless or in bed with either the Bushies or the anti-Bushies.
Final point: Think about it. The idea of our pulling out of Iraq only sounds dangerous if you buy into the fact that this is a war and we are fighting an enemy. If, on the other hand, you see it as a nation-building, or peacekeeping, effort to help the Iraqi's stabilize their new society, all of a sudden "pulling out" and turning things over to the Iraqis makes a lot of sense. The arguments that "we would be leaving in defeat" or that "it sends a signal to the enemy...yadda yadda" do not hold an oounce of water if there is no enemy? Right?