Liberal bias in the media’s coverage of the war in Iraq has been substantial.
While everyone hoped that the war would be quick and easy, but the idea that this was likely was largely propagated by the media. Since it became evident that this was not to be, the anti-Bush coalition in the media has pounced upon the inevitable alterations in the United States’ battle plan, attempting to misrepresent the situation as a quagmire destined for disaster.
Little more than one week into the war, coalition forces control 95 percent of Iraqi airspace, more than half of Iraqi soil, and are positioned less than 50 miles outside of Baghdad. Although he has tried through numerous missile attacks, Saddam Hussein has been prevented from killing any civilians in either Israel or Kuwait. An anticipated humanitarian and environmental crises was prevented by the allied seizure of most of Iraq’s 1,500 oil wells. Both coalition and Iraqi non-combatant casualties, while tragic, are low.
Yet despite all of the coalition’s progress, much of the media chooses to misrepresent actualities in hopes of furthering their own political causes.
Newsday used the headline “Bogged Down” to describe American forces that had traveled over 300 miles in six days without a single defeat. What would the headline have read if those forces had only gone 100 miles; “Catastrophe” perhaps? The same paper printed a headline that described non-conventional Iraqi resistance as “Tough Guerrilla Warfare,” feeding the idea that the coalition is facing fierce military opposition. Yet, if this is true, where are the severed supply lines and substantial casualties sustained by the coalition?
No successful military plan in history has remained unchanged in the course of its execution. In ignorance of this fact, the reaction of liberals in the media has been to attack the coalition’s plan as inadequate. “Plan Under Fire” was the headline one paper used to describe the situation. Under fire from whom?
Certainly not the Iraqis, who have thus far suffered only defeat. Perhaps a more accurate headline would have been; “We Are Erroneously Scrutinizing the War Plan Because We Don’t Support the War and Will Undermine the Efforts of the Bush Administration Every Chance We Get.” While that would be one long headline, it would certainly be more honest than the first.
An old adage says that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Applied to the media, that means that there is no such thing as objectivity. The story is spun by and for people with specific agendas and intentions. The predisposition to characterize anything less than complete and immediate victory as a failure by America’s military is politically motivated.
In the case of liberally biased war coverage, the agenda is to make the Bush administration, which liberals view as illegitimate, appear as dreadful as possible in hopes of greatly diminishing its chances for re-election.
Though detrimental to our nation’s solidarity and safety, the misrepresentation and sensationalism of even the slightest setback in the war to disarm Iraq seem to be the means through which liberals in the media hope to achieve their political ends.