Keith Devens .com

The report is coming from Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute. That's practically neo-con central. I'd take it with a healthy dose of salt-- the real truth is probably that there is a faint economic pulse there, but nothing to trumpet.

The LGF crowd ressurects the tired complaint about liberal media bias. That's a hoot. The MSM is not pro or anti-Bush per se, they are opportunists. They adapt to make money regardless of who holds office, following the polls in order to attract the greatest number of eyeballs.

It's the free-market at work!! The MSM is pushing whatever is easiest to sell-- iow, whatever the market wants. Why should there be journalistic integrity when there's a buck to be made? It's just business, isn't that something the LGF crowd can get behind?

I don't see how you can dismiss the liberal media bias by calling it opportunism. Plus, the first part of your comment commits the genetic fallacy. Of course it's going to be someone like him highlighting good economic news from Iraq.

The media certainly has a bias. Years ago, it used to be almost exclusively liberal bias. But now the media just follows the crowd. George Bush enjoyed tremendous media support during his first term and through the elections. It was only when the polls turned on him that the media switched its angle. If there's such a bias, why should the Washington Post blog carry the story at all?

If there's such a bias, why should the Washington Post blog carry the story at all?

I'd ask you, why didn't the newspaper carry the story? In any case, of course there's a liberal bias in the majority of the media. I'm not even sure what I could say in argument besides rounding up links to the books and reports that have been written on the subject. I'm like "What news media are you watching?"