A useful critique of the media and food for thought, this is perhaps most useful in the future. In other words, when reading future articles published in the media do these claims stack up?

An excellent, detailed analysis of yet another example of "how uncritically our press passes on government claims" by the always excellent Glenn Greenwald. Case in point this time: when "the Bush administration, and specifically its military commanders, decided to begin using the term "Al Qaeda" to designate "anyone and everyone we fight against or kill in Iraq" the establishment press enthusiastically "followed right along" despite ample evidence that it simply isn't true.

Today on the Los Angeles Times front page, under the headline "U.S. efforts geared to Iraq pullout" the words Al Qaeda were used 27 times in a four column story. The following is my letter to the editor: "Why do over 40% of Americans think that Saddam Hussein's regime was directly involved in 9/11? (Newsweek Poll 6/23/07) Perhaps that misconception has something to do with press coverage. In your front page article "U.S. efforts geared to Iraq pullout" (6/28/07) the words "Al ... More »

A well organized article which refutes specific examples of media reporting of yet another administration flip-flop about reasons for the Iraq invasion—that tragic debacle searching for justification. Obviously not everyone we’re fighting in Iraq is "Al Qaeda". Indeed, there was no "Al Qaeda" until we showed up, and in our haste to invade and because of our refusal to pre-plan, created fertile ground as well as training-by-example opportunities for terrorism. That the news media ... More »

Yes, this is good journalism because it exposes the bias of some of the main stream media outlets in detail. It has made me much more aware of how unreliable the New York Times is and how I have to be skeptical of everything I read in it. I am sad to see the same failings in the Washington Post which I thought, up to now, was a reliable newspaper.

The number of quotes from articles covering the US occupation of Iraq is truly outstanding, though I agree with the nay-sayers that an attempt to get a comment from one of the authors or from the Bush administration would have improved the balance of the article. Still, there is importance in an article that follows the progress of its topic so carefully through its brief history.

This unfortunately would be classified as not being "good journalism" if it appeared on FOX "Nooze" or its "media clones".The TRUTH is always a problem for those who still desparately want to believe in "BUSH'S WAR" and all the inherent lies related to it, and the major MEDIA so willing to echo and unquestioningly "parrot" the old/new lies of justification!!!

Glenn Greenwald, also known as Thomas Ellers and Rick Ellensburg among other pseudonyms, is extraordinarily lame, even when he's writing under his own name as he does in this post. His lack of credibility on a whole range of issues makes one highly suspicious of the basic point he is trying to make here at his usual interminable length. His essential thesis is that the media are willingly complicit in downplaying bad aspects of how the war in Iraq is going...only a totally uninformed ... More »

This Greenwald article so stupid it is funny. Anyone who has been following the news knows why Sunni fighters and al Qaeda are no longer being lumped together as "insurgenst": because the Sunni groups have turned against al Qaeda en masse and are now fighting on our side. That is why it is now "al Qaeda" who is being killed. To not know this demonstrates a stupendous level of willful blindness (filtering out even self-awareness of information that is not useful to the anti-Bush story line).