I could have told you that without a poll.

More than half of Americans say US news organizations are politically biased, inaccurate, and don’t care about the people they report on, a poll published Thursday showed.
And poll respondents who use the Internet as their main source of news — roughly one quarter of all Americans — were even harsher with their criticism, the poll conducted by the Pew Research Center said.

More than two-thirds of the Internet users said they felt that news organizations don’t care about the people they report on; 59 percent said their reporting was inaccurate; and 64 percent they were politically biased.

More than half — 53 percent — of Internet users also faulted the news organizations for “failing to stand up for America”.

Among those who get their news from newspapers and television, criticism of the news organizations was up to 20 percentage points lower than among Internet news audiences, who tend to be younger and better educated than the public as a whole, according to Pew.

The poll indicates an across the board fall in the public’s opinion on the news media since 1985, when a similar survey was conducted by Times Mirror, Pew Research said.

Captain Ed is blogging on this too with the Pew data included as a link.

The Anchoress has returned and I find her latest post echoing a feeling I have had for some time now about the daily news.

As I said, nothing has changed. All the stories are the same, we can simply re-file them and change the dates. It almost feels like the press and the whole world are in a holding pattern - there is no news, there are only re-framed, re-worked narratives - until George W. Bush gets out of office and the new narratives are permitted to form.

If memory serves me correctly, I recently mentioned to a friend how difficult it is to find news where real sources are actually the subject of an article.

That fact in and of itself leads me away from the “major news sources” to those who fisk those columns and articles and ferret out all the inconsistencies and half-truths.

I for one am just plain tired of all the negativity spewed daily by the press especially about leaders of this country on both sides of the aisle.

We have our problems yes, but the pictures painted repeatedly in the press make the leaders in this country look like bumbling fools..that really helps with that “world image” thing we hear about so often, don’t you think?

I suppose for now I will continue to search for the few items that come straight from the “horses mouth.” Sadly, at least for me, that is becoming increasingly difficult.

It is so nice to know that the shadow government is still in place.

AP: Government Report Concludes Al Qaeda Now as Strong as in Summer of 2001

I will offer nothing other than the above headline and the sentence below and add that whoever is leaking this type of information needs to be found and investigated.

Others may argue over exactly what this report means, but I for one have had it with individuals believing they have the right to put information in the hands of the press which is not yet meant for public consumption. There are reasons, and while some may not believe this, national security is one of them, that material is deemed “secret” or “classified”.

The official and others spoke on condition of anonymity because the secret report remains classified.

Read More

There is an update posted by Michael Yon on his piece entitled “Bless the Beasts and Children.”

It is worth a read and I found one segment of this article particularly interesting.

Update on “Bless the Beasts and Children”
Baqubah, Iraq

As the investigation unfolds more pertinent details, I’ll continue to update the story. But the biggest question rippling across the internet—“Why hasn’t the mainstream media picked this up?”—is something only representatives of mainstream media can answer.

In fairness, several large outlets did publish it online: National Review Online and Fox News were both quick to place the story prominently on their websites. A few others also published excerpts. It was even briefly up on the Drudge Report. On the blog front, Instapundit, Hugh Hewitt, Blackfive, Andrew Sullivan, Captain’s Quarters and many others picked it up.

But for those publications who actually had people embedded in Baqubah when the story first broke and still failed to cover it, their malaise is inexplicable. I do not know why all failed to report the murders and booby-trapped village: apparently no reporters bothered to go out there, even though it’s only about 3.5 miles from this base. Any one of the reporters currently in Baqubah could still go to these coordinates and follow his or her nose and find the gravesites.

On this question of media selectivity, the blogosphere has become incensed that big media mostly ignored the murders, especially given that there are reporters currently in Baqubah. Newsbusters and countless others are on it. More disturbing to many bloggers is that major mainstream players were busted (again) by Pajamas Media just days ago for reporting outright fabrications of a “massacre” that never occurred.

It is a sad day when we must now count on the internet and bloggers to report a story of this magnitude. Is the MSM afraid public opinion might just swing the other direction if they recognize in pictoral form that these thugs think nothing of murdering animals, women, men and yes even children in cold blood?

I can think of no other reason they would shy away from Michael’s reporting. He has given us the good and the bad, but he is not an ambulance chaser. He doesn’t look only for the latest car bomb or ied explosion. He is with units who are involved in battle and points out our successes and failures.

Mr. Yon does not have the answer as to why major media won’t print his work, but he makes them a very generous offer in this piece. I will be waiting to see if any decide to accept.

Judge dismisses ‘New York Times’ lawsuit

How refreshing to read the above headline today.

NEW YORK (AP) — A federal judge has dismissed a New York Times lawsuit against the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice, saying classified documents the newspaper was seeking under the Freedom of Information Act were properly withheld.

The Times sued the two departments in federal court in April 2006 over their refusal to hand over documents connected to the government’s warrant-free wiretapping program.

It might even do Congress well to review this decision (the italicized portion in particular) as the judge also noted:

In a decision filed Thursday, U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman said the government was justified in not handing over classified material because it fell under exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act, including attorney-client privilege and presidential communications privilege.

The judge, who reviewed government descriptions of the classified material, agreed with government arguments that the departments didn’t have to turn over the papers for reasons including protecting the confidentiality of how the United States gets it intelligence information.

This is a huge loss for the “Paper of “Record” but in my opinion a big win for the American people.

Bottom line, we simply do not need the disclosure of classified National Security secrets revealed once again by any publication in this country.

It really has been slim pickings lately for good news stories but I chuckled at the way it is described by James Lileks.

There is no news today. We’ve run out. Sorry; come back tomorrow. We’re expecting a shipment around noon, but we can’t guarantee it’ll be Grade-A news – could be that weird stuff packed with sawdust and Chinese anti-freeze and other fillers and extenders.

About sums it up for me.

Read more…

In the early Cold War, churches and civic organizations, together with government officials, built a civic religion to help mobilize for the Cold War–a war without end against a shadowy enemy (the international communist conspiracy) who could be anywhere. So the Eagles put the Ten Commandments on courthouse lawns, and thousands of people petitioned the President and Congress for official Days of Prayer. Congress during the Eisenhower administration made “In God We Trust” our national motto and put it on our paper currency, along with adding “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance.” The Republican Party declared Ike the “spiritual leader of our times,” the President who would start the annual National Prayer Breakfast that continues to take place every February. This is also the time when Billy Graham rose to prominence, the first to be able to hold a revival on federal property, the one who was said to have convinced Eisenhower to run, the the minister to the Presidents.

The Cold War’s over, but we’re in another that has no clear end, another against a shadowy enemy that could be anywhere–the Global War on Terror. But our civic religion is in tatters. There is no longer widespread acceptance of “Godtalk” in the public square. There is opposition to religious state rituals. There are growing differences among Christians over their role and action in the political world. What will mobilize us this time to fight this new war without end?

Pop culture–the world of commodified entertainment–may be filling that void. We buy self-help books written by pastors of mega-churches. We listen to slick contemporary Christian music on secular channels. We go to blockbuster movies that give us Bible stories in digestible formats (well, Passion of Christ was more shock theater). The latest film of this kind, according to Slate, is Evan Almighty:

Did anyone involved with Evan Almighty actually read the Noah story? You know, the part when God drowns the entire world, when “all in whose nostrils was the merest breath of life, all that was on dry land, died. All existence on earth was blotted out, man, cattle, creeping things, and birds of the sky; they were blotted from the earth.” Now, I’m no great religious scholar, but it doesn’t take Pope Benedict to see that the Noah story is not a charming little tale about familial love, but a terrifying lesson about our dependence on God: a warning that we are alone in the world and always at the mercy of a wrathful and demanding Lord.

For the full story, go here.

(p.s. I’ll be away for a week, so don’t mistake my silence for disregard).

Fox’s “Hannity and Colmes” show on May 21 featured Melanie Morgan, chair of Move America Forward, an organization that supports the Bush administration’s war policy in Iraq.

HANNITY: And welcome back to “Hannity & Colmes”. I’m Sean Hannity.

In an action that reeks of censorship, PBS’ signature broadcast, “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer”, has effectively banned conservative radio host Melanie Morgan from any future appearances.

Now, citing Morgan’s on-screen demeanor, the executive producer of the left-leaning news forum released the following statement. It said, “The NewsHour style is to ask pointed questions politely; we expect our guests to subscribe to the same rules. Since the program is produced live, we can’t do much to eliminate rude guests from your television screen once the segment has begun. What we can do is guarantee you will never see that person on our program again.”

Joining us now, radio talk show host, KSFO, San Francisco, Melanie Morgan.

First of all, Melanie, I would say this is a badge of honor for you on the one hand. But on the other hand, they are only silencing you. And there was an interruptive liberal guest on the program. Why were you — why were you separated in that way?

MELANIE MORGAN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: First of all let me just say that I thought it was a joke when I heard about this. I had been out of town visiting relatives in Kansas City, Missouri, which is my home town.

When I heard about it from my relatives and said, “That can’t be true.” And then I went to the blogosphere. And ohm my goodness, there was such a riot over some of the filthiest language I’ve ever seen in delight.

Let me tell you this. Linda Winslow, who’s the executive producer of “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer” is either badly misinformed or outright lying. Because these are the facts.

I was accused of being rude and interruptive. The guest who was on opposite me, who was with Votevets.org, one of the funded organizations by George Soros actually interrupted me for the very first time.

I did a word count on this. We were interrupting four — we were interrupted four times equal on each side. And he was given 55 percent of the air time or 56 percent of the air time to my 44 percent.

You can watch the segment or read the transcript here. You can read listener responses to the PBS Ombudsman here.

Like Hannity, I too read the transcript, and found both had their irritating moments, with Solz repeating “We are the troops,” and basically called the president a coward for not serving in Vietnam, and Morgan throwing out that chest-thumping cliche that people who don’t support Bush’s war efforts are anti-American. She also depicts Solz’s organization as purely political, as just a creature of big liberal money (Soros) and presents herself as the true populist vote. I’m sure both have big and small backers.

I did a word count, too, and Solz did get 1,040 words in compared to Morgan’s 811.

I also watched the segment. Both interrupt each other and Woodruff. Both are clearly passionate about their positions, and angry with each other. I learned about their organizations’ ideologies; I didn’t learn much about the range of grassroots politicking that’s going on in response to the war in Iraq (the ostensible topic of this news segment).

Though this won’t make much of a difference to folks who already think poorly of PBS, there wasn’t a PBS ban on Morgan. The Newshour producer implies in a response to complaints that Morgan won’t be invited again: “Since the program is produced live, we can’t do much to eliminate rude guests from your television screen once the segment has begun; what we can do is guarantee you will never see that person on our program again.” We’ll have to see.

My answer to the this posting’s question is no. I think it’s possible to be liberal without being anti-conservative, and I believe this is really about the Newshour style. My guess is that the Newshour does not want to do segments that sound like Fox’s Hannity and Colmes or the thankfully dead Crossfire on CNN–shows that set up debates that are either false, or are destined to go nowhere.

An analyst at the Project for Excellence in Journalism thinks so.

What happened to the overwhelmingly liberal media?

The week before last there were 45 articles and opinion pieces on religion and politics. This past week, there were 101. The Los Angeles Times (18), the Washington Post (16) led the way, with the New York Times (9) and USA Today (8) distant seconds.

Two kinds of stories drove this minor explosion in coverage, contestation and violence in the Islamic world, and the role of Christianity in the US presidential campaign. There were also more opinion pieces and letters to the editor, a number of them arguing for and against stem cell research and others commenting favorably or not on the attention paid to the religious side of presidential candidates.

The political violence in Palestine between Hamas and Fatah received attention all over the country (Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Seattle Times, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Newsday, the Christian Science Monitor, and the Baltimore Sun). Hamas has ousted Fatah from Gaza and now Palestine is not only two geographic parts, its governed by two different parties. The Washington Post gave it the most coverage, with stories from the 14th through 17th, reporting on Hamas’ opening moves, Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas’ response, and then the split between his party, Fatah, and Hamas, then the Post’s analysis of what they called a “civil war.”

This analysis gives useful thumbnail histories of Hamas and Fatah and provides some reading suggestions. There’s not much explanation of this current battle between the two factions except to echo the US and Israeli position that given its terrorist past, and the seeming commitment to jihad against Israel, the rise of Hamas in Palestinian politics is bad news.

A Newsday analysis notes the conflict in part lies in Fatah (the successor to the PLO) has lost legitimacy due to rampant corruption and apparent inability to govern his own forces.

Many of the other stories on Islam (11) were about the government crackdowns on Islamist parties in Pakistan and Egypt, two countries trying to maintain the façade of democracy draped over authoritarian regimes. Perhaps the irony encouraged all the attention. While the US touts democratization efforts in Iraq, it can only mutter about the political oppression these two US allies routinely practice. For Egypt, see this Washington Post article, and see USA Today’s coverage of Pakistan.

The bulk of news on religion and politics addresses Christianity, and all of that in the US. I’m not all that surprised, but I would have thought that at least a couple of stories would pop up about Christianity and politics in other countries, like the Pope’s visit to Brazil. I guess we Americans are just awfully parochial.

Anyway, like the prior week, most of the stories were about the presidential campaign, with belated reactions to the matter of some Republican candidates disbelieving evolution (Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo), and the Democrats’ public chat about their faiths. Romney’s Mormon faith also got some attention. The Boston Herald and LA Times (free registration required) tell us about Romney’s successful fundraising, and according to the USA Today’s recent polling data, his Mormonism is causing little stir among most voters. Go here or here for analyses of all the candidates.

Several posts here have suggested that the NY Times is not to be trusted when it comes to news and commentary on the US war in Iraq. Has NY Times coverage always been biased against the war? Let’s look at opinion and news pieces published in early 2003.

First off, the Times prominent columnist, Thomas Friedman, was a big cheerleader of the war. Though he disliked Bush’s unilateralism, he said this on the day the invasion began:

This column has argued throughout this debate that removing Saddam Hussein and helping Iraq replace his regime with a decent, accountable government that can serve as a model in the Middle East is worth doing — not because Iraq threatens us with its weapons, but because we are threatened by a collection of failing Arab-Muslim states, which churn out way too many young people who feel humiliated, voiceless and left behind. We have a real interest in partnering with them for change.
“D-Day,” 19 March 2003: Section A; Column 5; Editorial Desk; Pg. 29.

The Times published other op-eds that were more supportive than critical of the war, such as this by a Brookings Institute analyst, Michael O’Hanlon:

There tends to be a period of public impatience in modern wars, with Kosovo and Afghanistan being recent examples. Now we are going through our period of impatience, if not downright pessimism, during this operation. But the main elements of the strategy are sound, and the enemy is still basically weak. This war will cost a price in lives, and the administration should have done a better job to prepare the country for that sober fact. But it will be won, and won decisively.
“And Now, the Good News” 28 March 2003: Section A; Column 1; Editorial Desk; Pg. 17

The New York Times editorialized against Russian arms sales to the Saddam regime (”Supplying the Enemy,” 29 March 2003: ection A; Column 1; Editorial Desk; Pg. 10), and issued comments that were more just musings than hard opinion, such as:

Although blinding sandstorms and fierce attacks from paramilitary forces have slowed allied progress, American forces are headed toward their first major land battle against Saddam Hussein’s best troops, the Republican Guard. Just when or where the battle will occur is not yet clear, but its outcome may tell us how long and difficult this campaign will be, and how effective the daring American war strategy of a swift advance deep into Iraq will prove in practice.
“En Route to the First Big Battle” 27 March 2003 Section A; Column 1; Editorial Desk; Pg. 22

As for news coverage, there are a host of stories that paint the US war in a neutral or even positive light. For example, Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt reported on the US military’s humanitarian concerns got in the way of effective tactics:

The military mission calls for coalition forces to topple Saddam Hussein and rid his nation of any weapons of mass destruction that may be hidden there. At the same time, the war plan calls for leaving as much Iraqi infrastructure as possible standing to ease postwar reconstruction, and to minimize civilian deaths in order to quiet angry public opinion.

As the war enters its second week, however, military affairs experts ponder whether more indiscriminate bombing might, in the end, hasten victory and save the lives of American troops, and even spare more Iraqis the pain of a grinding ground war.

“We decided we would restrain the use of air power for reasons of humanity and world image,” said Loren Thompson, an air power expert at the Lexington Institute, a policy research center here. “We have imposed a burden on our campaign plan that may slow down victory and diminish the quality of the victory we achieve.
“A NATION AT WAR: AIR OFFENSIVE; American Planners Stick With the Scalpel Instead of the Bludgeon” 27 March 2003: Section B; Column 1; Foreign Desk; Pg. 7

Or Times reporters tried to answer straightforward questions like “What level of casualties does the White House think the American public will tolerate?” Todd Purdum asked White House officials, military analysts, and historians for their views and put them together in an article. Standard journalism, and hardly propaganda. (”A NATION AT WAR: THE CASUALTIES; Delicate Calculus of Casualties and Public Opinion” 27 March 2003: Section B; Column 3; National Desk; Pg. 1)

Finally, as described in Hubris, by Micahael Isikoff and David Corn, some New York Times coverage fed the frenzy for war. Cheney used Times reporters Michael Gordon and Judith Miller as conduits for flawed intelligence about ties between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and Saddam’s WMD programs (Hubris, Three Rivers Press, 2007: 34-36).

Of course you can find opinions against the war in the New York Times, and news that that exposed problems in the war, or that was critical of the war (especially as time goes on and the war goes badly). It is a liberal paper. But dismissing any and all Times coverage is just not warranted.

I’ve commited that error in my reaction to the Washington Times, and will try to apply this point to myself.

Why this is important to know from a presidential candidate is beyond me.

BAGHDAD, June 3 — Three months after the start of the Baghdad security plan that has added thousands of American and Iraqi troops to the capital, they control fewer than one-third of the city’s neighborhoods, far short of the initial goal for the operation, according to some commanders and an internal military assessment.

The American assessment, completed in late May, found that American and Iraqi forces were able to “protect the population” and “maintain physical influence over” only 146 of the 457 Baghdad neighborhoods.

In the remaining 311 neighborhoods, troops have either not begun operations aimed at rooting out insurgents or still face “resistance,” according to the one-page assessment, which was provided to The New York Times and summarized reports from brigade and battalion commanders in Baghdad.

The assessment offers the first comprehensive look at the progress of the effort to stabilize Baghdad with the heavy influx of additional troops. The last remaining American units in the troop increase are just now arriving.

Violence has diminished in many areas, but it is especially chronic in mixed Shiite-Sunni neighborhoods in western Baghdad, several senior officers said. Over all, improvements have not yet been as widespread or lasting across Baghdad, they acknowledged.

The operation “is at a difficult point right now, to be sure,” said Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, the deputy commander of the First Cavalry Division, which has responsibility for Baghdad.

In an interview, he said that while military planners had expected to make greater gains by now, that has not been possible in large part because Iraqi police and army units, which were expected to handle basic security tasks, like manning checkpoints and conducting patrols, have not provided all the forces promised, and in some cases have performed poorly.

That is forcing American commanders to conduct operations to remove insurgents from some areas multiple times. The heavily Shiite security forces have also repeatedly failed to intervene in some areas when fighters, who fled or laid low when the American troops arrived, resumed sectarian killings.

“Until you have the ability to have a presence on the street by people who are seen as honest and who are not letting things come back in,” said General Brooks, referring to the Iraqi police units, “you can’t shift into another area and expect that place to stay the way it was.”

I’m not saying this report is not true, as for once, they have actually quoted a real person, but it’s almost as though the New York Times writers are instructed to go out and find the most demoralizing stories so they can print them and praise them as a fact for the entire country of Iraq.

Yes, we need to get Iraq to beef up its police and military forces. That’s not something new to us.

We have also read dispatches and posted them on this blog about the Sunnis getting fed up with the terrorism of Al Qaeda and asking us to help them rid that scourge from their neighborhoods.

Have you ever seen a military plan that goes exactly as planned, except for a State Funeral? There are always back-up plans and the article itself admits not all the brigades were in place when the interview was done.

Read the rest.

I just read this post by the Anchoress in which she references this post on Newsbusters.org talking about a reporter for Newsweek saying President Bush is mentally ill.

I have to admit my cheeks are flaming red and hot right now after reading this piece of trash.

No one, and I mean no one can possibly diagnose someone as being mentally ill just from watching him and not talking to him.

I’ve been to a psychiatrist for treatment of depression. I still go for med checks every six months and I can tell you a diagnosis was not made in my case until several visits.

Yes, he knew I was depressed after interviewing me the first time, but it took a lot of work on my part as well as his to get to the root of the problem. I am offended by the Newsweek article, and every person with a conscience should be.

I’ll give a quote from the Anchoress:

First, we get an elementary course on “denial:”

Denying the evidence of your eyes is the most extreme form of the coping mechanism called denial. But denial comes in milder forms as well. Parents refuse to believe their child is on drugs; that baggie under his bed contained oregano. A husband maintains his wife cannot be cheating; those late nights she spends with a friend are purely platonic.

Yes, insisting that someone “lied” about intelligence, no matter how many times you’re reminded that the same intelligence was was being fully touted by world leadership for almost three years before the man ever got into office…that’s denial.

Let’s see on what Newsweek is basing its quack diagnosis, shall we?

Bush could, of course, know full well that the United States cannot achieve its goals in Iraq. If so, then he is lying not to himself but to us (for reasons scientists would have a field day with, but that’s another story). But while it’s always risky to psychoanalyze a politician from afar, a few things in his past are consistent with the capacity for denial. When he was 7, his baby sister died of leukemia. Bush, while certainly not denying her death, tried to cheer up his grieving mother, saying everything would be OK. Also, those who abuse alcohol, as Bush has admitted doing, typically need to see the world in black and white in order to stay on the wagon. “It’s how they control their addiction,” says Sulkowicz. “It reflects an inability or refusal to see shades of gray.”

My goodness, that is a masterpiece of ugliness and “nuanced” aggression based on nothing more than someone sitting around musing. In one paragraph - and with the seemingly reluctant admission that all this musing may mean nothing - we get:

1) He might not only be lying to himself (because he must know that his “war is lost,”) but he’s also LYING TO US
(Mr. Subliminal reinforces the “he’s a liar - Bush lied, people died” narrative).

2) When he was 7, he tried to comfort his grieving mother with all the compassion, love and clumsiness of a 7 year old.
(Mr. Subliminal says Bush is mother-hung, traumatized and guilt-stricken by his sister’s death and that’s why he’s retreated into fantasy land!)

When my Elder Son was 7 I lost a baby during pregnancy, and as I wept my son - full of compassion and wanting to do anything to make me feel better - climbed onto my bed and hugged me and told me “it will be alright, Mommy, it will be alright.”

I suppose my son is “mentally ill” too. Either that or Newsweek has made a serious miscalculation, here. Every parent who is honest understands precisely what passed between Dubya and his mother at that moment, and it is nearly obscene to see it painted as anything less than profound and innocent love. It is low, hateful, needlessly spiteful and quite honestly it says much more about the writer than it does about the president.

To me, in my amateur analysis, I can’t help but wonder (as I wondered about Ann Coulter) if there is a humanity gene missing here, or maybe there really is such a thing as a derangement syndrome at work. Either way, that is the sleaziest thing I’ve ever seen. And how horrible for Barbara Bush to read it, to remember that moment and see it dragged so recklessly. mindlessly and spitefully through the muck by such an adolescent mind.

Oh, and don’t forget, the president is a drunk and only sees things in black and white. I wonder how many of our presidents have been secret drunks while in the White House?

I am infuriated and don’t even want to entertain the notion this writer is right. She’s not a psychiatrist and she’s out of her realm in saying the president is mentally ill, but that will be the new battle cry from those with Bush Derangement Syndrome. She fits right in and is leading that battle. She’s disgusting!

Sister Toldjah has a horrific story of a double murder committed in January of this year in Knoxville, TN.

Why haven’t we heard about this all over the news? Was the news of Anna Nicole Smith’s death a month later more worthy of the days and weeks of coverage?

If five white people had killed anyone of any other race like this would we have read about it for days and weeks?

We’ll never know because the victims were white and their alleged murderers and torturers were black.

Why didn’t Al Sharpton have something to say about this crime? And, no, I’m not a racist, but read the story and see if your blood boils as mine did.

Laura Lee Donoho shares an email received from her son serving in Iraq which shows history certainly does repeat itself. Here’s a little peek but please go read the entire piece.

We ventured to remark, several months ago, that the Administration had shown its entire incompetency to conduct the present war. We regret to be compelled to reiterate this opinion, but the sad experience of every day has not only confirmed it, but demands, in the name of our beloved Union, that the Press of the country speak out and spare not.

It is undeniable that every move our army has made has been a blunder, our naval expeditions proved failures, and our battles resulted in defeats;with the exception of the brilliant little affair at Drainsville–the only bright spot in the dark and bloody panorama before us.

Read on…

Let’s compare and contrast the reporting of two Washington newspapers on the arrival of the queen.

The first is the front-page story of today’s Washington Times:

Queen Elizabeth II arrived at the White House yesterday for a state visit overflowing with pomp and pageantry, complete with a 21-gun salute and the Bush administration’s first white-tie-and-tails dinner last night.

On a cool and cloudless day, trumpeters at the South Portico of the White House heralded the queen’s arrival, and soldiers of the U.S. Army’s Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps — dressed in black tricorn hats, white wigs and red regimental coats — piped a Continental Army tune as they marched across the South Lawn.

“Your Majesty, the United States receives with honor the sovereign of the United Kingdom. We welcome back to the White House a good person, a strong leader for a great ally,” President Bush said.

But the president fumbled his effusive praise when he told thousands of guests gathered on the lawn that the stately matron of the United Kingdom — queen for 55 years — had first visited in the 18th century.

“You helped our nation celebrate its bicentennial in 17–,” the president said, standing just a few feet from her majesty. Catching himself quickly, he corrected the date to 1976, but it was too late. The crowd of more than 7,000 dignitaries and guests spread across the lawn tittered softly, then broke into raucous laughter. Mr. Bush paused, then looked sheepishly toward the queen, who smiled at the leader of one of Britain’s former colonies.

Looking back to the throng, Mr. Bush deadpanned: “She gave me a look that only a mother could give a child.” More roars of laughter erupted in the crowd, who waved tiny Union Jack and Old Glory flags handed out at the gates.

Now we go to the Dana Milbank’s editorial in the Washington Post, titled: “The President Learns It’s Good to be the King”:

With etiquette handbooks at the ready, the White House was in a high state of faux pas alert for Queen Elizabeth II’s visit yesterday. Still, President Bush lasted only about 14 minutes into the state arrival ceremony before implying that the British monarch is 300 years old.

“You’ve dined with 10 U.S. presidents,” Bush said on the South Lawn with the 81-year-old sovereign at his side. “You helped our nation celebrate its bicentennial in seventeen s –” — here the president caught himself — “in nineteen seventy-six.”

The crowd laughed. Bush looked at Her Majesty — and winked. Elizabeth smiled politely and said something that sounded like “some year,” or “you’re near” or even “oh, dear.”

“She gave me a look that only a mother could give a child,” a quick-thinking Bush reported back to the assembly.

At least he didn’t credit her with signing the Magna Carta.

In the days before yesterday’s state visit, the talk was all about how the regular-guy president disliked all the pomp that comes with a royal function. Don’t believe it. As they say in Texas: Balderdash and poppycock.

True, the state dinner last night forced Bush to stay up beyond his bedtime, and wearing tails is a hassle for pretty much every man who doesn’t sing with the Whiffenpoofs. Also, such events bring bad memories: At a similar pageant last year, the Chinese president was heckled by a Falun Gong protester and the White House announcer confused China and Taiwan.

But the president seemed to be enjoying himself mightily yesterday. After Bush and the first lady took an impromptu walk with the queen and Prince Philip across Pennsylvania Avenue to Blair House, White House pool reporter Tara Copp of the Austin American-Statesman reported that “the president was in as sunny a mood as the sky above.”

And why shouldn’t he be sunny? The queen would not bicker with him about the Baghdad security plan, and there would be no prickly news conference in which he would be asked about the Newsweek poll putting his support at 28 percent, equal to Jimmy Carter’s in 1979. Yesterday gave Bush a chance to put aside the messiness of being head of government and enjoy the trappings of being head of state: cannons on the Ellipse, an Army fife-and-drum corps, a troop review and red geraniums on the South Portico.

Same story, two differing ways of telling it. Even in a non-political event the WaPo had to get in the political digs.

Admittedly the front page story in the WaPo was a bit more diplomatic in its reporting.

And the