Comments on: Journalists attempt to justify lack of media attention on low September Iraq casualty numbers

By: Leslie

Leslie — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 13:53:24 +0000

On Columnist Rich v. Justice Thomas:

To paraphrase Churchill: If Columnist Rich were to write a column criticizing Hell’s foreign policy, I should at least make a favorable reference to the Devil in the comments section of ST’s blog.

By: Great White Rat

Great White Rat — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 02:45:41 +0000

Q: Should that decline in Iraq casualties have gotten more media attention?

A (from WaPo): Not necessarily. The fact is we’re at the beginning of a trend and we’re not even sure it’s a trend yet.

Oh, right. But on the other hand, it casualties spike upward for a month, count on the WaPo to put it on page 1. No questions then about whether it’s a trend or not.

A (from CNN): We don’t know whether it’s a trend about specifically the decline in the number of US troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress.

Whoa…if you don’t know whether it’s a trend or not, how can you say it’s not enduring progress? Wishful thinking, perhaps? At least the CNN talking head was honest enough to admit that higher casualties would go right to the lead story.

The only thing important to the MoonbatStream Media is whether a news item can be spun to help their Dem allies.

By: NC Cop

NC Cop — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 00:37:09 +0000

Wasn’t it just a few short months ago that the Army was being criticized for underreporting casualties due to them being related to criminal activity, sectarian violence, etc. Now the media is using the same excuse for NOT reporting the low casualty rate.

Absolutely priceless.

You can’t make this stuff up!