Reporting vs. Distorting
In recent months, I've regularly roasted the MSM for inaccurate, short-sighted and (at times) dishonest reporting from Iraq.
If you're looking for another example, Chester has links to an excellent study by Bill Roggio, Marvin Hutchens, and Steve Schippert on coaliton military operations in western Iraq over the past month. As they point out, there is a definite purpose and strategy behind this campaign, namely to eradicate terrorist safehavens, and reduce the influx of other jihadists from Syria. You won't find this depth and context in MSM accounts, because many reporters are either lazy, stupid, or both.
Building on that foundation, Chester contrasts a recent Time report on the operations in Al Anbar with the comments of U.S. military commanders and information from other sources. Note the dramatic differences between Time's take on the situation (based on limited observations) and the perspectives of military officers who've been battling the enemy for months. If you read the magazine's account, you get the impression that our troops are chasing ghosts, fighting an unwinnable battle. From the military commanders, the progress seems clear and quantifiable.
Who do you believe?