Troops see MSM arrogance & bias

With the recent attack on ABC News' Bob Woodruff and his cameraman, the coverage that the story has received has been sickening. Yes, it was news and yes, it was worth reporting...the first 2,000 times! However, the MSM has been saturating the airwaves (like Michael Moore saturates a tablecloth-sized bib at a Chinese buffet) with the story in a way they would never do with a "regular Joe". Christiana Amanpour of CNN, which you recall was the network that suppressed Saddam's atrocities over the years as a quid pro quo to receive access to the Butcher of Baghdad, proves that the MSM's perceptions about the Iraq War are clouded by their own sense of self-importance:

We have to have an independent eye on these conflicts (Still waiting on that "independent eye", Yummubritches! - Ed.). The war in Iraq has basically turned out to be a disaster, and journalists have paid for it. The kind of awful thing that's going on there now on a daily basis has almost become humdrum. So when something happens to people that we identify, like Bob and like Doug, we wake up again and realize that, no, this is not acceptable what's going on there, and it's a terrible situation.

Look at the stressed expressions. A glaring omission: the troops. For Amanpour, the true travesty of the war has been that "journalists have paid for it"! It is for that reason, we infer, that the war has been "not acceptable" and "terrible", huh? Tie together this sentiment of "journalists are getting hurt", the self-congratulatory tone of "sacrifice" that the MSM endures to bring us "the truth" (as they see it), and the excessive coverage that Woodruff's wounding has received: the clear and obvious conclusion is that the MSM thinks "It's all about me!"

But don't take my word for it. How about what the troops think?

The American media stood up and took notice when an improvised explosive device grievously injured an ABC News crew Sunday.

In Iraq, and throughout the military, there is sympathy and concern for anchor Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt, but there is also this question:

"Why do you think this is such a huge story?" wrote an officer stationed in Baqubah, Iraq, Monday via e-mail. "It's a bit stunning to us over here how absolutely dominant the story is on every network and front page. I mean, you'd think we lost the entire 1st Marine Division or something.

"There's a lot of grumbling from guys at all ranks about it. That's a really impolite and impolitic thing to say ... but it's what you would hear over here."

At least 2,242 troops have died in Iraq since the war's start, 1,753 of them killed in action. Another 16,000 have been injured, half of them seriously enough to require evacuation from the battlefield. According to the Pentagon, 60 percent of the deaths are the result of IEDs. IEDs have injured more than 9,200 troops, nine times more than gunshots.

"The point that is currently being made (is that) that press folks are more important than mere military folks," a senior military officer told UPI Tuesday.
...
Military personnel often express frustration that the media harps on military casualty reports at the expense of what they consider their successes in Iraq.

The MSM doesn't give a wet fart on a dry January Monday about the troops! Death counts are merely their props to try to reinforce their own personal viewpoints that get masqueraded as "news", though thankfully, the new media allows us in normal America to easily remove their masks.