I wrote a response to this yesterday but it didn't post...so here's a second try...

The people who sit in the anchor chairs sit in very, very powerful positions wouldn’t you agree? 

No, I don't. I think they are just the prima donnas of the news business. They get the fluff job at the end of a lot of other peoples hard work. I'd say you have teams of people that collect the news, research it, compile data and info...then Dan, or Peter, or Ted get to be the big talking head that spits it all out. I don't think they are permitted to color a story to suit their political agenda. They may have the loudest voice in some of the news division meetings that take place to determine content of the broadcast and presentation but I don't think they are allowed to spin a story to any meaningful extent.

That's the big difference between a major news anchor and Rush or O'Reilly. Rush and O'Reilly are paid to give opinion and spin things for their listeners. Their shows are designed around their opinions and are the vehicle for them. Same with Franken and Mike Moore chooses the topics for his films and governs the entire presentation. News anchors are the last in a chain of people, including a legal department, that have handled and shaped what will be broadcast. They play a far smaller part than those other guys in what is broadcast and how it's presented. They just don't have that kind of control.

Same with newspapers...a reporter works on a story but then it needs to pass through several filters...editors, other reporters, legal, etc...before it gets onto the pages of the paper that lands on your doorstep every morning. This is also why there's a connection between what's in the papers and what's on major tv news broadcasts...if a guy at ABC reads it in the New York Times he's going to figure it's made it through all their filters to get to the page so the story should be solid for them to attack.

 I’ve seen enough over the years to realize that difficult questions don’t always get asked when it’s a democrat in the spotlight but there are no holds barred when it’s a republican. 

I think this is a matter of you seeing what you want to see in many cases. Meaning, I think your personal beliefs color how you view something. It happens to all of us. Don't get me wrong here, I do think the media folks drop the ball. They often ask the wrong questions, or what they think are the hot questions (but are really meaningless), or they ask soft questions because they want to be able to get another interview later or be allowed better access in the future so they can maybe scoop a story nobody else has. It can be a game and I think that is when they fail us for their own personal gain.

 Do you recall the news conference Bush had a couple months ago when nearly every reporter tried to get him to say he was sorry?  I mean, really.  I just don’t think you would have seen that line of questioning…let me rephrase that…I know you wouldn’t have seen that line of questioning if it were Kerry doing the answering.

I totally disagree here. I think they would have taken the same route with Kerry had Kerry created the same kind of situation. See, this is one of those areas where part of this is you seeing things a certain way because you like Bush. I think they asked him the "apology" question twice. I don't think they were that rough with him but most of his trouble with the media is his own fault. Personally, I thought all that apology stuff was a load of crap and why waste your time asking him stupid questions like that when there are so many questions they should have been asking. See that was one of those questions the media folks saw as "hot" because Clark had apologized and they thought that's what people wanted to hear. Major league ball dropping on their part...liberal bias...no way.

This is a president that has had the least amount of contact with the media of any modern president. He hardly ever allows himself to be put in a position where he has to answer questions. He does not do well when he has to think on his feet and come up with his own answers. So, it's been intentional that he is kept away from the press as much as possible. After that fiasco that night and all of his bizarre and rambling answers...which often had nothing to do with the question...my guess is we won't be seeing him do many more Q & A's like that.

The press will hound you if you don't talk to them and Bush policy is he does not talk to them. He gives statements or speeches. No questions. Also, I think the slogans and catch phrases they come up with for him are intentional. They are easy for him to remember and multi-purpose...he just throws them out when he needs an answer to something. They seem designed to keep him on track and on message...even if he uses them when they make no sense...at least it sounds as if he's being consistant.

Also remember this is a guy that says he doesn't read the papers and called a reporter from the New York Times an asshole in public. He doesn't seem to like the media, never did, and doesn't hide it. I think that's fine but it is asking for trouble.  

Hey, don’t take my word for it.  Bernard Goldberg actually started out as a working class left leaning individual who grew to dislike what he saw in the newsroom across the country. Here’s an interesting article he wrote for the Wall Street Journal a few years ago… 

There may be more liberals in a lot of newsrooms but how they may vote I don't see as being important to how they do their job. It's a business like any other.

No, I don’t think a reporter would pull a story which might further his/her career because it portrayed someone he supported in a negative light but I do think that the story wouldn’t receive the emphasis it might otherwise get if the news anchor heading the newscast wanted to downplay it. 

See that's the thing...I don't think the anchor can make that decision and do that. He's part of a crew that has worked to develop and compile the story. I think Koppel, or Rather, or Jennings have the do the story the way the crew agreed to do it. They might go on talk shows later and say how they feel or see things but I don't think when they do the nightly news they can twist things or downplay things that suit them.

The really big thing here is that the major news anchors do not benefit from intentionally slanting a story. That's not their job and not why people watch them. For Rush, O'Reilly, Moore, Coulter, Franken, etc...they all benefit from providing a left leaning or right leaning view and they are paid for opinion...they have an audience that will buy what they are selling...but they are not in the same business as a reporter from a major newspaper or a news anchor.

Look at it this way, these news outlets are owned by giant conglomerates and wealthy folks who tend to be Republican (think Sinclair). Pat and you seem to think that most of the folks in this country are conservative and right wing. That being the case, if most people (all the conservatives of this nation) don't trust Dan, Ted, and Peter...and the people they work for who own these networks are conservatives...what are these guys doing on the air? Wouldn't popular opinion and their bosses force them off the air because they are playing games with the truth? There are a shitload of folks lined up right behind them ready to take their jobs...those major anchor postions only open up once every couple of decades or so. Not an easy job to get but one a lot of people want. It seems there's a lot that doesn't add up about about this "liberal media" myth...

We’ve seen the popularity for the war in Iraq begin to wane in recent weeks in the U.S.  Do you suppose the negative reporting has had any impact on the opinions of the people polled? 

If the news coming out of Iraq is negative why do you blame the media for reporting what happened? The media is doing their job...some bad stuff went down at a prison...it's an on-going story...they are reporting it...it's not the media's job to say "Hey, if we report this stuff will it affect what people feel about the war?"...it was the job of a number of people in the military, CIA, and Bush administration to decide "Hey, if we do this and it gets out will it affect how people feel about us and the war?"

It was a bad idea for Bush to have his legal team drafting up ways to get around the Geneva Convention...that is disgusting don't you think? Here we are the nation that claims we want to hold everyone up to a certain standard...one we supposedly set...we supposedly stand for human rights and yet Bush has lawyers looking for ways to avoid the Geneva Convention...you don't see how low that is?

You don't see how the problem is not that the media reports these abuses and mistakes...that is their job...it's that there are people creating these mistakes and abuses...it's like blaming the guy who told you about abortions for all the abortions in the world. It's saying..."Well, until he told me I didn't know, so it's all his fault."

You can't see how backwards that is?

So, is it right that a large percentage of our population has been influenced by a continual one sided drum beat of negative news which distorts the real picture?  Are you okay with that? 

I'm not ok with any distortion. You have to see though that reporting fighting in Falluja or Karbala is a big story because people will die in that fighting. It's bigger than a story about electric supply or a story about a new school being built or a story about satellite dishes...and there's nothing liberal about that idea. There is a marketplace for distortion out there for sure...but I know you won't like it when I say this because it tends to include all these people the right likes to lean on...that marketplace is talk radio and opinion shows. That's what makes them sell is that you get...not news...the hosts opinion and slant on the news. Plus we have this whole marketplace for books from Ann Coulter and Al Franken...opinion books designed to sell to a certain audience. It is in these areas where characterizations are drawn...the authors sense of humor or anger is displayed...and you get something you certainly could find reason to call "distorted."

It's no accident that this is where all the screaming about liberal media bias comes from...because it sells and people buy it.

I’m sure if it were Kerry in office and he was in charge we’d still see the negative reporting but I’m certain you would see a much more healthy dose of what is right and good about our mission. 

I don't think so. If Kerry had sat as president through this mess and did all the same things Bush has done...we'd all be calling for his head as well and the media would be after him for avoiding them and their questions.

I just don't see where the good stuff is. Yes, it was good to get rid of Saddam but if Bush had wanted this so badly and had this big concern for human rights why didn't he use this as part of his campaign platform in 2000? If he had said after 9/11 that he wanted to go after Saddam, not because he was a threat to the United States or had anything to do with 9/11, but because of human rights issues...and that he wanted $87 billion right up front to do that...and that we'd put our search for Al Qaeda members on hold in the meantime...you'd still say "Yeah, let's do it! We can always come back to the Al Qaeda thing."

Bottom line is, I don't see the issues here being what the media has done or is doing...I see the issues as being what Bushco has done and is doing...to cry foul because it's getting reported seems very wrong...