Balanced?

Larry Kudlow in NRO says the media has started its turn-around now that Rivera and Arnett are dismissed from the war:

"So, consider this Arnett/Geraldo moment the turning point — but not exactly the one they intended. These two will represent the media's high tide of disinformation — which, when history writes it, won't look like much of a tide at all. While the barrages of disinformation will continue, responsible and accurate journalism will carry the day. To begin, the Wall Street Journal's editorial writers are getting it right. Donald Rumsfeld, they report, inherited the Clinton defense budget, which was slashed to the bone. His resources were scarce, while the military grandees from Gulf War I inherited the Reagan inventory and its massive Cold War buildup of resources. Fox and MSNBC are providing good war coverage, too. Their reporting is fair and balanced, and, most important, truthful. The same can be said for Rowan Scarborough and Bill Gertz of the Washington Times — and, usually, John Burns of the New York Times. The coverage in the New York Post has been excellent. Paula Zahn on CNN has been fair. The Washington Post editorial page has been strong. And don't forget Kudlow & Cramer — holding the fort for wartime patriotism and tax cuts."

Media's high-tide of disinformation? Arnett didn't say anything wrong, he just said it at the wrong time and place, just like one might shout "Yeah, he's a real a-hole..." at a very noisy party exactly the instant there was an unexpected lull in the noise level. Nothing incorrect, just an embarrassment for the one saying it. More and more you'll start to see embedded reporters get tired of all the cozying up by the troops and realize that there is another side to this war, the impoverished Iraqi civilians who are only trying to defend their own homeland from a far superior invading force led by some unelected Christian zealot hiding back in Washington. Fox, MSNBC, CNN, the Posts, the Times's, and so on, have been anything BUT fair, balanced and truthful. Rather, they are towing the line for the Republican Administration and reporting only what makes Bush, Rumsfeld et al look good. They (with the exception of the Washington Post) rarely report anything regarding the massive worldwide opposition to the war and the huge anti-war movement in the U.S.

"We're also seeing the enemy for who they really are. The Iraqi regime is committing war crimes by using hospitals for operational headquarters, putting weapons into schools, and placing women and children on the battlefield as human shields. They wave the white flag of surrender only to pull out a rifle and shoot coalition soldiers — all while American soldiers carry Iraqi prisoners to safety. A picture of an American GI hauling his barefoot and bloodied POW to a nearby medical facility tells it all: There's a big difference between American values and the values of Saddam and his henchmen."

Yes there is a big difference in values. We Americans value peace, freedom, good education and our health, as do the Iraqi civilians. The difference is that Hussein and his henchmen along with Bush and HIS henchmen value only power and money. Exactly how many times did any of the major TV media carry the story of the Iraqi van carring ten women and children being decimated by trigger-happy troops, especially the part of the commanding officer on the scene yelling profanities at his troops for being so deadly stupid and careless?

We in America are all googoo-gaga over one female soldier with some broken bones getting rescued. What about the hundreds of women and children already murdered in the past two weeks by bombs, bullets, grenades, and soon-to-be-thousands by disease and famine? Where's the balanced reporting of that?