Media Bias 101

From... get ready for the big surprise... Reuters

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqis reacted with skepticism Tuesday to a call from President Bush for more international help in rebuilding Iraq (news - web sites), saying the United States was looking after its own interests at their expense.

Even if the above is true, what's wrong with United States looking out after it's own interests. Isn't that the reason why we toppled Saddam Hussein the first place? Well kind of not really, if you read the president's remarks on the eve of the war he makes it quite clear just why we went into Iraq. But wait, this Reuters article gets even better.

"Street vendor Ali Hussein said more international involvement would only prolong Iraq's occupation.


"It's an excuse to stay in Iraq... It will create chaos and will not solve America's predicament in Iraq," he said.


"Bush should call back the Iraqi army with the exception of the Baathists, and leave them to police the country," he said, referring to Saddam's old ruling party.

America is now in a real mess and they want to find a way out... It's worse than Vietnam but getting more troops will only make it more difficult for them here," said Abdul Rahman Khalaf, a clerk in a private accounting firm

Haider Ali, a money exchanger, said more troops in Iraq would just mean more hardship for Iraqis.

"This will only make it clearer it is an occupation, without offering us anything in return," he said.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but this sounds suspiciously like those "Man on the Street" interviews the New York Times is infamous for. Here it is, Reuters finds five Iraqi's out of 25 million, who actually do not want the United States there and then they use their views to make the informed opinion that the country, as a whole, does not want the United States there. If the same thing is done in say, the United States, do you honestly think that that represents the views and opinions of the country as a whole? Well if you work for Reuters it just might.

But let's be honest, it is not like this Reuters reporter actually went out and found these 5 Iraqi's and quoted them. No, this is what this reporter did, he came up with the story idea that that Iraqi's are unhappy with the occupation then he went out to find quotes to fit his story. After finding the 4 or 5 most "relevant" ones he then used them. There was, in all actuality, very little "reporting" done by this "reporter". Of course that is just speculation on my part, but I would not be the least bit surprised if that is how it all went down. I get criticized by some of my more liberal friends for making conclusions like this, but which would you rather have. Someone who just accepts this reportage at face value? or someone who actually engages in a little critical thinking about said reportage, then makes up his own mind? If you wish to engage in group-think be my guest. Me, I would rather make my own decisions.

Ask any Iraqi what their biggest fear is, and they will tell you that is the United States abandoning them and not the United States itself. That the "main-stream" media does not report it, does not make it any less true. In a poll conducted I believe two months ago it was discovered that 87.1% of Iraqi's do indeed want us in Iraq, that they really are appreciative of what the United States did when it toppled Saddam Hussein. These are facts that anyone on the Internet can look up and verify, that this reporter from Reuters did not, only shows me just how biased he really is.

For those that would use the above quotes to prove just how bad it is going in Iraq, allow me to enlighten you. Do you think, under Saddam Hussein, those Iraqis would be able to give their honest opinion? (going on the assumption they actually feel the way that they feel) Not for a minute, those men would just "disappear", undoubtedly into one of Saddam's torture chambers. In a mere four months Iraq has gone from a brutality repressed country, where people couldn't criticize the leadership, into one that can. For me, that spells p-r-o-g-r-e-s-s. For liberals it is a sign of a quagmire. You tell me, just which ideology actually believes in the decency of our system of government?

And the media can still say they aren't biased with a straight face? Astonishing.