Unfortunately for us civilians, the media has taken sides for years.They report the news in a way that shows their sides favorably.Whenever clinton took action on a issue the media that opposed him reported more or less that "he was wagging(sp?) the dog", while the media that supported him reported the same issue in a more favorable light. The same goes for bush, the media has taken sides.For example of what I have read, seen or heard I have found that the media that is pro-bush & thus pro war are fox, ny post,& wash. times.The wall street journal was pro-bush before the war started, but have'nt been able to read anything by that paper since the outbreak.The media that I find that are anti-bush & against the war (not saying that they are hoping saddam wins)are cnn, ny times, la times,cbs, & abc.They will slant the news that will show the iraqi fighters as fighting a tough war, while fox will say that the war has gone brillantly for the allies.As freak said, people should try to get various viewpoints on the war & then draw an opinion.IMO, these media outlets are doing us civilians a dis-service.
My two favorite political commentators are oreilly & mathews.I don't agree with either one on every issue but their shows have bite. They take on both parties, with oreilly leaning more to the right & matthews leaning more to the left.I tend to disagree with those who think that oreilly always favor the republicans because I have seen him hammer republicans on various issues. For example he agressively attacked jeb bush on a few issues such as florida's social services losing a foster child.