Will it never end? How can anyone feel like an informed citizen in a supposedly representative democracy when the media is so obviously corrupted?

and if someone bellyaches about it --- tell them to piss off.

Come on . . . it works both ways. ANY political party will attempt to further its interests via the media, above and below board. You're living in la la land if you think otherwise. The fact is you have to go with the flow and be a critical, self-reflexive consumer of information and not believe something simply because you heard it on FOX, CNN or read about it in Salon who are all equally serving their respective financial needs to stay solvent (above the interests of the viewer/reader) by playing to their respective market bases. There's always an ulterior motive. They're not even different from the political groups who try to spin data to them in the first place.

Seriously, you want the military to determine who is and who isn't a Journalist?

How about if Salon wanted to embed someone, and was denied because it's a "web based" media?

If you want to have any embedded journalist, then this is the price you pay, that some of them might not have the same political outlook that you have.

That's the problem with freedom of speech, it means people with whom you disagree actually get to talk.

...why is anyone surprised that fake "reporters" from the McCain campaign are being repeatedly sent to Iraq to proselytize on the taxpayers' dime?

There's nothing untoward about journalists and publications having an agenda. Everyone has an agenda... it's an intrinsic part of the human condition. The problem with the way the US goes about it is that there's no declaration of agenda. If you look at (for example) the UK, each daily publication has a declared bias, be it left-wing, right-wing, or (in many cases) catering for idiots. But at least it levels the playing field... you know which preconceptions you need to carry when you read an opinion piece.

"I think it's just the most unfiltered, transparent approach," Bellavia says. "We want to know what these soldiers think."

Wow. Embedding reporters is "the most unfiltered, transparent approach"? That shows either a remarkable level of naivete or a remarkable level of disingenuousness.

Guernican has it right. It isn't that "journalists" may be, or are, biased. In the U.S. it's the pretense and fakery of "objectivity" that is misleading and galling. Journalism is not a profession, not like doctoring or lawyering or teaching or accounting or even truck driving. You have to earn a license to do any of those things. That's what makes them a profession. Anybody can be a "journalist."

Iraq war coverage has petered out to almost zero this year.

I absolutely love it when a blatantly leftist publication has the gumption to complain about right-leaning reporting of the war. I would have liked to be a fly on the wall when they were discussing how to pose this piece without coming off as liberal tools. Should have talked a little longer guys.

While I agree the journalism should be independent of political funding, and these guys may or may not be, it is not reasonable to expect an individual not to bias their reporting with their views. Slate is as good an example as BlackFive (full disclosure I regularly read BlackFive and occasional post responses).

The worst thing that could happen to the left is for the right to gain a foothold in the media and entertainment industry. Without all that free advertising, would they be enjoying a majority in congress and a candidate for President who assumes he is already the President?

Will Fox

The worst thing that could happen to the left is for the right to gain a foothold in the media and entertainment industry.

Fox news is not part of the media?

I absolutely love it when a blatantly leftist publication has the gumption to complain about right-leaning reporting of the war.

I do not think Alex was complaining. But in any case there can be no question that reporting even from "liberal" sources (NYT, for example) was heavily biased towards the administration viewpoint. "The old generals club" was certainly not objective. And so on.

I think we've already seen that "embedded" and "journalist" slapped together are at best an uneasy fit. Add "veteran" and you're in grave danger of creating a multi-syllabic oxymoron; that is, if one associates journalism with objectivity.

Perhaps the strangest aspect of these suckers who served in Iraq and support this war (which was created upon a foundation of lies) is how comfortable they are allying themselves with draft dodgers such as those at The Weekly Standard and Fox News. Steve, World War 2 Vet.

Yeah, not to mention their backing of President AWOL.

News reporting has degenerated to the point where fact and fiction often cannot be determined by the casual reader, or viewer.

The people trying to influence public opinion know this, so they dress up their "reporting" as news when, in fact, it is opinion.

Fox News' headline banner featured a waving American flag as its symbol. The image framing used is red, white, and blue. It looks like an advertisement for America but it is just the opposite. It makes a mockery of the American ideal of a freely informed public.

Propaganda is not new, it has been a part of the information stream as far back as can be remembered but it could usually be seen for what it was. Today, it is not easy to see the truth.

Mother Jones Magazine ran an extensive report, "Lie by Lie", outlining the lies and propaganda used immediately prior to the invasion of Iraq. It contains full documentation and footnotes as verification of the informaytion presented. Here is a link to the piece: http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/

Fox news is not part of the media?

True. But I would argue that the leftist bias of the media itself created the market for a right-leaning news organization. Fair and balanced reporting is a myth, on both sides.