From my perspective I notice a much greater leaning to the right then the left but that may be that I pay little attention to local news and focus more on national news networks and as I am sure you are aware there is different types of news presentaion in different areas. Some are more left and some are more right while there is a real lack of center positions in the media. A center approach in every area that presents all peoints of views equally would be best but that just isn't how things work. I am also sure that many that watched the same news broadcast as you thought it was to conservative leaning so it is all a matter of opinion. It is also important for the media to be free to present what they want as long as it is either truthful or an opinion. Well that is my view and many probally disagree with me as well.

Are you saying that war could possibly be presented in a positive way?

Akrym -- I appreciate your comments. I certainly see Fox News as more conservative in their stance but I also see they make a big deal about trying to present both sides. I was watching ABC news when I saw the program. I was noticing not a single thing was said to balance an opinion the medium itself was advancing. A medium (plural: media) is merely a channel. I'm lamenting the fact that "media" are no longer channels; they are the advancers of a message whether conservative or liberal. I subscribe to a political newsletter in my state that is clearly neither conservative or liberal. They merely report exactly what is happening without telling about too many opinions. (Opinions tend to sway readers/viewers like in mob psychology, bandwagon approach, and other means of propaganda.)

I agree that the media should be free. However, if it exercises its right to say what it pleases, it should advertise as thus. It's like improper labeling on goods; one can get in trouble for false advertising or not listing what's really in a can of ranch style beans. In other words, if you're going to advance liberal viewpoints, say so. "This is my opinion..." or "We at ABC news feel..." I think that will give viewers more of a notice of who really feels how.

JeremyG -- I think that war can be presented in a positive way. I realize this may sicken you, but have you ever heard the WWII song, "praise the lord and pass the ammunition"? You see, we believed that by rescuing a population from genocide and curtailing nazi growth in the world, we were doing an honorable thing. The God I believe in used war to bring his people back to him, to take them where he wanted to take them, and to achieve other goals. I don't think war is innately evil any more than sex is. I think both can bring about great travesty at times and sometimes we use them incorrectly and unwisely. Both can be positive when used correctly and wisely. In fact, I believe both can be blessed. I still think a news medium that advances itself as "the facts" should stick to them instead of using singular events to color an issue.

Stating something as an opinion is a good idea especially for a news service, I have seen some anchors give commentary at the end of a news broadcast and this is clearly the opinions and views of the anchor. I also really hate to see views expressed as fact which is often the case for both conservative and liberal networks, they kind of twist the factual event one way or another. I can see through this but many people can not and just accept it. We honestly can't expect any big changes with this so I would like to see people become more aware about the world instead which is also a rather far fetched idea. Things change so I guess I will just have to wait and see.

I was actually going to mention WW II is response to that statment, the events of the war were not positive but the outcome certainly was. I think that Iraq is a much different situation then WWII but as wars go WWII is generally the most glamourized, just look at all the movies and games about it.

The 9/11 Commission Investigation

The 9/11 Commission Investigation

... The international narcotics trafficking problem is an order of magnitude more important that international terrorism. Also, it is a direct attack on the United States by hostile nations operating covertly through their foreign intelligence services as explained and documented in detail in Red Cocaine. Is this any different from the international terrorist threat? Moreover, international organized crime, which is closely connected with both drug trafficking and terrorism, is even worse with its annual revenues in the $3 trillion plus range and capital reserves in the $30 to $50 trillion range. This could not be possible without the assistance of the big banks, the big law firms that help organize the money laundering, and payoffs to the politicians, courts, and intelligence/po! lice investigating agencies. As explained by Professor Jordan in his book Drug Politics, the drug trade and organized crime flourish because they are politically protected. Is there anyone that really thinks the criminal overworld – all of whom are very powerful and respected people – are not in touch with people on the Commission? Their interests (and similar ones that exist at high levels throughout the U.S. government, from the White House to Congress to the CIA and Department of Justice) are served best if the Commission’s charter is as narrowly focused as possible, where it can do no harm.

link: http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/douglass/2004/0330.html

Stating something as an opinion is a good idea especially for a news service,

Personally I prefer to see the news report facts, and let me form my own opinion. Reporting an opinion as fact, and reporting actual facts are two different things. Save the opinions for editorials, but then ALL news has become an editorial and very little news involves just reporting facts any more.

VES

The Spoils of War:
Afghanistan's Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade

... Narcotics: Second to Oil and the Arms Trade

The revenues generated from the CIA sponsored Afghan drug trade are sizeable. The Afghan trade in opiates constitutes a large share of the worldwide annual turnover of narcotics, which was estimated by the United Nations to be of the order of $400-500 billion. (Douglas Keh, Drug Money in a Changing World, Technical document No. 4, 1998, Vienna UNDCP, p. 4. See also United Nations Drug Control Program, Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1999, E/INCB/1999/1 United Nations, Vienna 1999, p. 49-51, and Richard Lapper, UN Fears Growth of Heroin Trade, Financial Times, 24 February 2000). At the time (1994), the global trade in drugs was of the same order of magnitude as the global trade in oil.

The IMF estimated global money laundering to be between 590 billion and 1.5 trillion dollars a year, representing 2-5 percent of global GDP. (Asian Banker, 15 August 2003). A large share of global money laundering as estimated by the IMF is linked to the trade in narcotics.

Based on recent figures (2003), drug trafficking constitutes "the third biggest global commodity in cash terms after oil and the arms trade." (The Independent, 29 February 2004).

Moreover, the above figures including those on money laundering, confirm that the bulk of the revenues associated with the global trade in narcotics are not appropriated by terrorist groups and warlords, as suggested by the UNODC report.

There are powerful business and financial interests behind narcotics. From this standpoint, geopolitical and military control over the drug routes is as strategic as oil and oil pipelines.

However, what distinguishes narcotics from legal commodity trade is that narcotics constitutes a major source of wealth formation not only for organised crime but also for the US intelligence apparatus, which increasingly constitutes a powerful actor in the spheres of finance and banking.

In turn, the CIA, which protects the drug trade, has developed complex business and undercover links to major criminal syndicates involved in the drug trade.

In other words, intelligence agencies and powerful business syndicates allied with organized crime, are competing for the strategic control over the heroin routes. The multi-billion dollar revenues of narcotics are deposited in the Western banking system. Most of the large international banks together with their affiliates in the offshore banking havens launder large amounts of narco-dollars.

This trade can only prosper if the main actors involved in narcotics have "political friends in high places." Legal and illegal undertakings are increasingly intertwined, the dividing line between "businesspeople" and criminals is blurred. In turn, the relationship among criminals, politicians and members of the intelligence establishment has tainted the structures of the state and the role of its institutions.

link: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO404A.html

The difference between reporting the war in a negative light, reporting the same story in a positive light and offering an unbiased perspective usually comes down to a few adjectives. This shouldn't be a big deal.

As soon as I read this blog post, I opened CNN. The headline is "U.S. suspends offensive in Fallujah." I would rate this as mildly negative. Why? "Offensive" indicates that we, the U.S. I mean, are the aggressor. We are indulging in offensive behavior. The story goes on to say that we halted the offensive in order to begin "talks that could lead to a cease-fire and to allow humanitarian aid." Please note that I am directly quoting the CNN article. A headline of "Ceasfire talks begin, US offers humanitarian aid" (NOT a quote, but a paraphrase from the very news story) paints the same news story in a different light, while presenting the same facts.

I don't really need the news media to make up my mind for me. If they would just present the facts, I could handle that responsibility for myself.

Bear this in mind however. There is nothing new here. It is NOT something that was invented recently or by the current generation of reporters. The more sensational the headline the more likely we are to read it. That having been said, our generation is fortunate to have access to multiple news sources. Read several and you can glean the facts.

vernmeister2u You misunderstood what I was saying, what I mean is that if a news service is going to state an opinion then they should tell people before hand. I didn't mean news service should report informaition with their opinion, I hope I am a little clearer now.

sometimes facts are negative and not just political spin...i thought the news was too easy on rice yesterday after that display of lying and incompetence.

someone should have handed rice a piece of juicy fruit on the way in...to see if she actually can walk and chew gum at the same time.

at this point, someone should hand her some paper and a pen so she can resign. i am tired of her incompetence and lying to cover it. she was not experienced enough to be NSA in the 1st place, and the only reason she was there was to tilt the political clout scale towards cheney and co. ...her lack of experience and knowledge of the mid east (fact is her specialty is and always was missle defense and star wars systems) is the weakest link in the administration's chain and she needs to be replaced, even if George wins in november...in fact, i see her replacement as much more vital than a presidential chain.... i've had enough of her "on the job training" and would prefer someone who has a little actual experience and expertise and the guts to stand up and be accountable without being led by the nose.

hope I am a little clearer now

Yes, clearer. Although I could argue that you mistated yourself, not that I misunderstood what you said. But the fact remains, news services still spend very little time JUST reporting facts. They all have become editorial, pretty much all the time.

"They all have become editorial, pretty much all the time."

I agree and that is the biggest problem with the news media and I think things will stay the same. I do however notice less of this in some of international news services from other countries where you actually get a lot more facts and a lot less opinions.

Sean -- Were you as angry when Madeline Albreit was widely renowned for NEVER reading her foreign news briefs on prime ministers and our policies with other countries? She almost NEVER knew what was going on. In fact, she was supposed to go speak to the PM of N. Korea about his egregious abuse of human rights (including slavery) and instead, she was profusely photographed eating gourmet foods, drinking expensive wines, and all around rather "partying it up" with him. She came back with nothing accomplished! and this was the norm. Were you as indignant then? You sound like a very intelligent person and I'd not think you were sexist or racist... but perhas this has more to do with a personal dislike. I think she did a wonderful job when under such unprecedented (and unethical) pressure from the left to testify publicly while still serving her boss. And the comment about the gum was really uncalled for. It was a personal attack (ad hominem) and didn't advance your opinion at all. Instead, I am less inclined to take your side because of it. I would like to hear more about why you ACTUALLY feel this way though. BTW she says she's stepping down in Jan regardless of outcome.

I saw parts of Rice speacking an I honestly didn't see a thing that was either a big misstake or was a great defence. She was very neutral sounding on every question and I can't really see why either side would be speaking out. The republicns were praising her job before she was even finished and the democrates quickly started atacking her. Everything that has been happening lately has been partisan for the most part because it is an election year. Rebublicns think she was great and democrates just call her a liar and incompetent and quite honestly she isn't either. She may not have a great deal of experience but how many people that move into important positions within any government really do. Experience is usually the last thing used by a president to pick someone for a position, politics is almost always the reason for the choice regarless of what party they are from. I want to see honest assessments and not attacks or partisan opinions. Well that is just my view .