Lieberman v. Murtha explained

Mark Steyn begins his Sun-Times column with the contrast between the massive media fawning over Rep. John Murtha’s call for an immediate pullout from Iraq and the massive media silence over Senator Lieberman’s call to stay the course: “Dems determined to ignore progress in Iraq.”

Coincidentally, earlier this week, reader Michael Valois asked Columbia Journalism Review editor Steve Lovelady “what he thought
about the MSM ignoring Joe Lieberman’s positive report from Iraq.” Valois wrote:

Steve, Sen. Lieberman just returned from his FOURTH post-invasion trip to Iraq and writes in the Wall Street Journal: “I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood–unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn…It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern.”

Why can’t we read about Sen. Leiberman’s views in the NY Times or in the Washington Post? Why is it that President Bush and Sen. Lieberman can give facts to readers from BOTH sides of the aisle, but Mr. [Calvin] Woodward can’t manage to do so in an AP wire dispatch?

Lovelady responded:

You think the New York Times and Washington Post should write a story every time a neocon hawk pens an essay for the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page?

Somehow, I don’t see that happening…

And there, ladies and gentlemen, you have it.

Responses

Books to read from Power Line