The above video clip is from Howard Kurtz's show on CNN called "Reliable Sources." In it we see Robin Wright of the Washington Post and Barbara Starr of CNN rationalize why good news out of Iraq is buried, while bad news is news worth reporting.
Noel Sheppard of News Busters points out a couple of recent examples as to why this reasoning is so hypocritical:
[No such moral conundrum existed last month when media predicted a looming recession after the Labor Department announced a surprising decline in non-farm payrolls that ended up being revised up four weeks later to show an increase.
And, in the middle of a three and a half-year bull run in stocks, such "journalists" have no quandary predicting a bear market every time the Dow Jones Industrial Average falls a few hundred points.]
Read the rest of the article here.
Does anyone not realize that the real reason to suppress good news from Iraq is to keep President Bush's approval ratings low? Was this not the same reason the big three networks declared they would never again show video of the 9-11 attacks and the WTC crashing to the ground? I believe the official reason given for the latter was that it would be too upsetting for viewers. But we know the real reason was that it would add to President Bush's popularity and give him a mandate for responding forcefully---which would insure his reelection. After all, since when did the major networks give a hoot about our sensibilities? Read my posting below about being DONE with CBS. But I digress...
(Hat tip to LGF)