Finding and spreading secret information? Is that even an issue? I think Rush got it right today on his show - these people should all be passed with flying colors and are ready to work for the New York Times.

*Chuckles*

I bet all of these students have bright futures in the media ahead of them. :)

Ya know, when I heard this story today I was thinking that the level of corruption in the MSM is so rank that it's time for a major change. The focus of this major change is in one key area-the War on Terror/Islam. President Bush and his Administration needs to create a high-level department dedicated exclusively to accurately reporting the war. It's imperative. It needs to be done in the next few months, at the latest.

I find it most curious that someone with a screen name "Freedom1" wants to create an Orwellian style Ministry of truth. Well the clear explanation is that anything with the word ministry in it will do for all ills as you are cut from the same cloth as the radical Muslim who would kill himself and destroy his Soul to make a point. Cut from the same cloth, yes but without the conviction of certainty.

But back to the point. CBS did not do what it should have done with the Bush military service case they should have left it alone. few Americans think Bush did anything more or less than Clinton did by not serving. Your president was merely in uniform in a unit that existed to protect the politically connected, the wek minded and those of questionable sexuality who came from wealthy families from serving in a place where their behavior, lack of intelligence or poor socialization skills could be scrutinized. Had W been shot down spent a year in a Viet Cong prison camp and come back with a DFC then all of this would be moot. He was a trianed pilot and he never left the United States when less well trained units were on their second deployments. CBS blew that by even going near a story that could be corroborated by no one.

The Jayson Blair mess is the greatest cautionary tale that someone in my position as an editor of a daily can learn. Trust no one and if it looks too good to be true then it probably is.

C.E.

CE - so you edit bad spellers anonymous daily?

I reject your definitions of Bush's service, and hence your arguments. Which by the way, have nothing to do with the topic but do represent the typical Bush hatred we see from your side. OK, you hate Bush - we get it. But since I see your hatred as irrational, I see you as irrational.

They'll have a great future working for the Bush administration forcing scientists to alter the reports on their findings to fit what Bush would like reality to be, kind of like George C. Deutsch.

Nate - no proof of that. Lies and publishing classified information in the liberal m,edia... how many examples you want?

Didn't these people cheat on a take-home, open-book exam?

You know, watching WH pressers, and watching/listening to the DBM, (DN)CNN, and MSLSD makes one wonder: Why do journalists even need to go to college--these idiots have proven, time and time again, that intelligence isn't required when pursuing a journalism career. Hell, you don't even have to be able to spell or speak clearly anymore.

How the Press Fails America

BLACKSBURG, VA., November 30, 2006 — Jim A. Kuypers, assistant professor of communication in the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences at Virginia Tech, reveals a disturbing world of media bias in his new book Bush’s War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2006).

Convincingly and without resorting to partisan politics, Kuypers strongly illustrates in eight chapters “how the press failed America in its coverage on the War on Terror.” In each comparison, Kuypers “detected massive bias on the part of the press.” In fact, Kuypers calls the mainstream news media an “anti-democratic institution” in the conclusion.

“What has essentially happened since 9/11 has been that Bush has repeated the same themes, and framed those themes the same whenever discussing the War on Terror,” said Kuypers, who specializes in political communication and rhetoric. “Immediately following 9/11, the mainstream news media (represented by CBS, ABC, NBC, USA Today, New York Times, and Washington Post) did echo Bush, but within eight weeks it began to intentionally ignore certain information the president was sharing, and instead reframed the president’s themes or intentionally introduced new material to shift the focus.”

This goes beyond reporting alternate points of view. “In short,” Kupyers explained, “if someone were relying only on the mainstream media for information, they would have no idea what the president actually said. It was as if the press were reporting on a different speech.”