It is strange that this horrible story hasn’t popped up anywhere else (even among what might be termed "Conservative" media outlets), as far as I can tell.

However, in looking for this story on a number of sites, I couldn’t help but notice that the capture of Abu Abbas plays a rather prominent role on the home page of practically every news outlet out there (CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, Fox News, to name a few). Since the capture of this terrorist is no doubt regarded by many as a positive result of the war, I wonder why the biased media would give it so much attention? I would think that a biased media would downplay this as much as possible, and certainly wouldn’t be giving it front page treatment.

The Abu Abbas story is, um, just a bit too big too ignore, even by the big boys... I am curious though, could you name 3-4 "Conservative" media outlets you’ve surfed who are not reporting this story, Mr. Little?

Typically, it is the spin the mainstream press slants their stories with, rather than the withholding the news, that’s tends to frost conservatives. Though, if I had been wathcing CNN when they reported the Abu Abbas story, I’d probably wonder what they’re not telling me -- given their self-confessed proclivity to withhold vital information from their viewers (like known atrocities and tortures committed against their own employees by Saddam’s regime).

could you name 3-4 "Conservative" media outlets you’ve surfed who are not reporting this story, Mr. Little?

I profess to being more than a little reluctant to do this, as somebody will - inevitably - respond that the sources I listed are not "conservative," and then we’ll spend the rest of the day debating the issue of "what constitutes a conservative media outlet." That said, I’d like to answer Mr. Lamb’s question in hopes that he will answer my own (see below), so here goes...

Foxnews.com

National Review Online (which features no news of the prisoner release, but does feature news of Abbas’ capture along with a large picture of Abu Abbas with the headline "CAUGHT!")

Newsmax.com (which, though I consider to be a less-than-reliable source, others have cited it on these boards, so I consider it fair game).

Washington Times

NY Post

Now, with regard to my question for Mr. Lamb. I would like to ask him to document an example (or two) of instances where a news story "slanted" the facts due to a bias.

" I would like to ask him to document an example (or two) of instances where a news story ’slanted’ the facts due to a bias."

CNN obviously "slanted" the facts due to a bias" when they pretended it was business as usual in Iraq for many years. The New York Times did so with page one reporting about the coalition "quagmire" shortly after the war began. But Peter Jennings of ABC News is mt favorite slanter.

But your much too clever by halves for my debating tastes, Mr. Little. I confess I missed it at first: your take on how the supposedly "biased" mainstream press faithfully reports the Abu Abbas story, while the "conservative media outlets" ignore the "horrid" "100 Iraqiprisoners from an underground torture chamber" story?

Right. I think from now on, I’ll be ignoring our little Democrat from the Queen City. :)

For what it’s worth, you and I are in agreement with regard to the CNN situation. I had actually intended to mention it earlier (if for no other reason than so that we wouldn’t have to debate about something we both agree on), but something else grabbed my attention and I forgot all about it. I wouldn’t describe CNN’s error as a "bias," though... it’s more a breach of journalistic integrity (and yes, the two are very different things).

As for your comments regarding Peter Jennings and the NY Times, I had rather hoped that you would cite some examples that you saw as bias, and tell me in your own words why there constitute bias. I was a little disappointed to see that you simply referenced somebody else’s comments (none of which I agreed with, by the way), but perhaps this is my fault as I did not make it clear what I was hoping to see.

One final point. You mentioned that you were missing my point originally, and I think you are still missing my. The consequence of Dr. Schramm’s statements (see above) is that "biased" media outlets have purposely excluded the news of the 123 prisoners freed from the Iraqi "hellhole," since it constitutes news that would validate their agendas. But I was able to show that very, very few media outlets - regardless of their political flavor - lent ANY coverage to this story. What’s more, the supposedly biased media outlets offered just as much - if not more, in some cases - coverage to the Abu Abbas story as those which you might qualify as non-biased.

If your sole response to the case I have laid out is to ignore me, then do as you must. I will try to survive without your insight. :)

PS: Just out of curiosity, why would you - not knowing me personally, my party affiliation, or even my stance on more than 1 or 2 political issues - presume to qualify me as a Democrat?

In the third paragraph of my last post, I used the word "validate." I had intended to say "invalidate."

Marc Lets not feed the troll!

It’s great to see that Dr. Schramm’s comments yesterday were targetted at the right people (no pun intended).

Bravo, Mr. Maxwell.

Besides, everyone knows that trolls don’t like the taste of Conservatives... too bitter!

Calm down. That was a joke. :)

"Marc Lets not feed the troll!"

Folks, meet Matthew Little!

Not a troll, Mr. Maxwell, but a Democrat. :)

I wonder what his publisher might say about the whole of the work day he spent on this one topic today?

I’m not sure what that was supposed to accomplish, but I’ll take it as an affirmation of the fact that you have nothing to offer with regard to the media conversation.

To the person (or persons) who has taken advantage of Mr. Lamb’s posting of the URL of my company’s information exchange to send offensive messages at 8:16PM, 8:25PM, 8:32PM and 10:18PM, you should be aware that your IP addresses have been recorded, and there will be consequences your actions.

While I question Mr. Lamb’s motivation in posting this link, it is certainly his right to do so. It is not - however - anyone’s right to abuse a corporate information exchange for the sole purpose of obscene, profanity-laden messages. Let me suggest, in the strongest possible language, that this foolishness cease immediately.

Thank you.

Earlier in this thread, I had commented on how the "media bias" thing was largely "generational" in nature. Recalling the Oldsmobile ad campaign of a few years ago, I re-wrote it for the broadcast networks, "This is not, your father’s CBS!"

Well, I just found this at Drudge:

FOX NEWS CHANNEL’S FOX & FRIENDS DEFEATS BROADCAST NETWORK FOR THE SECOND CONSECUTIVE WEEK
Thu Apr 17 2003 16:54:06 ET

For the second week in a row, Fox News Channel’s (FNC) morning program, Fox & Friends defeated CBS’s The Early Show across the board, according to Nielsen Media Research.

Despite being available in 25 million fewer homes, Fox & Friends averaged 2,863,000 total viewers to The Early Show’s 2,770,000 viewers for the week ending April 11th. Fox & Friends also posted more viewers in both the key advertiser friendly 25-54 and 18-49 demographics, averaging 1,480,000 and 1,210,000 viewers respectively, to CBS’s 1,234,000 and 1,074,000 viewers in those categories.

Just an FYI.

Does the article mention NBC or ABC? I’d be curious to know where those networks stand. I suspect they remain well ahead of Fox. The awful ratings of the CBS Network as a whole has been common knowledge for a while now.