Now wait a minute...

The mainstream media is completely incorrigible. The remind me of my 13 year old brother (if I had one). They get so swept up in the fad of the month, and will NOT buck the system or questions the popular thought of the day, much to the detriment of the viewers who deserve to hear all sides.
Now, this latest round of media stupidity is the pendulum swinging to the anti-war side. Let's remember the media was fully for the war, never featuring truly credible anti-war pundits on the programs with a fair chance to pitch their side. They even went so far as to simply NOT REPORT on the huge anti-war protest of 300,000 people surrounding the White House. 300,000 people marching in Washington, D.C.? Nope, simply didn't happen, but let's look at what Paris is doing this week...
Well now that the overwhelming majority of people oppose the war, the mainstream news is now also opposed to war. Like feverishly, irrationally, far too enthusiastically opposed to it.
Does anyone remember this era? You're in 7th grade, and you still like Weird Al, but then all the kids you know are into Green Day, so all you do is buy Green Day CDs, posters, notebook covers and pretend Al didn't exist--just to be popular?
Yeah, this same level of maturity and thoughtfulness applies to the news.
So what's getting lost in the ferver of all this anti-war only coverage is that you have more little victories all over Iraq thanks to the mini-surge. It's not good over there, but things are getting more secure in the most populated areas. The villagers are joining up with U.S. forces and standing up to Al-Queda, and so Iraqi and American are reclaiming the areas for peace. And what's happening? Schools are being built. Local economies are returning. More than five hours of electricity are available to the Iraqis each day.
Too bad the school boy media cares too much about being popular to show that stuff.
Remember, the job of the mainstream television news is to get ratings. They're a for-profit industry paid by the huge corporate advertisers based on ratings. Their main job, as a business is to make money, not to inform the public.
So what do we get? The sickness of today's television news: spectacle-ism.
When it was pro-war, what was it? Videos of Saddam's rape rooms and torture bunkers, the famous image of him on the balcony, shooting the rifle in a Mussolini-like orgy of dictatorialism. We had the American flag in the corner of all the news stations, waving as a background to the time and date, even as the media was encouraging the stifling of the patriotic question-raisers.
What is it now? Images of Walter Reed and the delapidated conditions of the veterans hospitals (which by the way, every democrat in the senate voted to improve, and most republicans voted not to spend the money on), the anti-war pundits who are NOW given the full ten minute slot to eloquently explain the nonsensicalness of being in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and then the pro-war candidate who is berated and barked off the show.
This isn't news. This isn't good journalism. This is an exercise is sophomoric popularity contests, disguised as an outlet that's supposed to give you 'the truth.' Well, nothing could be further from it. News shouldn't be owned by a private company, whose bottom line is making money off reporting what the viewers WANT to hear. That is Obscene to call that news. That's pandering. On the most insulting level. News should be owned by one entity and one entity only: the truth. If it is popular, fine. If it raises questions, good, let's explore it more and find the truth. But don't pretend you're keepers of truth, when what you do is no better than the 7th grader, whose green day posters are all but buried and furled beneath his bed, because it turns out Al is back. And that's cool.