1 John, you are not going to fit in here. When the media makes a mistake on behalf of Republicans, it's a mistake. When they make a mistake that hurts Republicans, it is part of the worldwide leftwing conspiracy. Don't confuse them with facts! And don't analyze a media outlet and question whether it is lefty. They all are, except Fox and the Washington Times.

2 For a perfect illustration of left-wing moonbattiness, check out the discussions over at DailyKos as to how C-SPAN camera crews "conveniently" ran into "technical difficulties" during their YearlyKos conference. The truth is, C-SPAN just couldn't get a fix on a satellite signal because of the RF signals bouncing off all the tinfoil hats, but the Kossacks are always looking for a conspiracy...

3 I wouldn't characterize the Times as "Left", but I would characterize it as both a) liberal (in the American sense) b) partisan Democrat.

4 They didn't apologise in 36 point Times New Roman on the front page. It would be commercial suicide and the Times isn't some lefty cooperative that thinks that losing money is morally invigorating. I dunno. Pinch doesn't seem to have a problem with it. :-)

5 To be honest, I know little about UK newspapers or there various political leanings. However, after an admittidely entrtaining back-and-forth row at The Good Lt.s last post, I will say the UK's political bloggers are geometrically more rationale. The reprint of the photo could have been an honest mistake? From the MSM? You'll never make it at the Jawa Report!!!

6 Winged wrote: "The reprint of the photo could have been an honest mistake? From the MSM? You'll never make it at the Jawa Report!!!" My original post contains this relevant passage: "The UK Times has issued a retraction and apology..." That's what I wrote, thereby acknowledging the facts as reported. It's cool - just read a little more carefully before trying to be an editor.

7 Michelle is a hottie, no doubt. Wish she'd lose the tight camera angles and show the whole package. Don't you? Having said that, I do think the gal has a gift for writing and an even bigger gift of developing sources. She does great reporting and if there is anyone who will make the transition from the blogsphere to the on air Fox babe, it will be Michelle.

8 Yet, John, one wonders how these newspapers continue to make the same mistakes time after time. Is it sloppy editing? Is it a complete trust in the news-gathering outfits like Reuters and the AP, who continue to make so many mistakes(like posting photos of things that happened months ago), that one has to wonder whether these are in fact mistakes, or perhaps something much more sinister. I think the sinister theory is picking up steam, myself. And why would the media accept obviously bogus reports and photos from known insurgent groups and their allies in the first place? And continue to accept these bogus reports, even when these people have proven to be wrong and to manufacture evidence in the past. Why? It's getting more and more obvious to anyone who has any sense of objectivity.

9 Yes, Lt., I noted that you mentioned the apology the first time — kinda necessary, don't you think, as it was mentioned front and center in MM's blog. I also noted that you left in the struck-out line "dishonest smear attempt" referring to the inclusion of the photo. So what is it, honest mistake or dishonest smear attempt? And remeber, your standing as an MSM-hater may hang in the balance. I'd say my original statement about John Bull's chances stand.

10 John Bull is a part of the MSM? That's news to me.

11 Michelle can do no wrong.

12 Speaking of Al-BBC, what does the UK public think of that network? Do they really believe the BBC reports accurately on the US?

13 InFire asked: "Speaking of Al-BBC, what does the UK public think of that network? Do they really believe the BBC reports accurately on the US?" Unfortunately, yes. The BBC is a cultural behemoth, it gets vast amounts of taxpayer's money to insinuate itself into virtually every part of UK cultural life and, more worryingly, acts as a training ground for many journalists who then go on to work for other outlets. It's a real problem. Happily many UK residents have real life experiences of the US and American citizens that contradicts the party line. A number of former BBC journalists have also hinted that they are writing insider accounts of the BBC's bias. It'll be interesting to see how much of an impact those accounts have when published.

14 “Yes, Lt., I noted that you mentioned the apology the first time — kinda necessary, don't you think, as it was mentioned front and center in MM's blog. I also noted that you left in the struck-out line "dishonest smear attempt" referring to the inclusion of the photo. So what is it, honest mistake or dishonest smear attempt?" Again, you (for some reason) point out what MM wrote, and I pointed what she wrote out in my post. What is your point here? To show me that you actually re-read it and saw what I wrote? Congratulations - you still have no point. Just because the outlet said it was an "honest mistake" doesn't mean that I necessarily accept or believe that. There is a pattern of these things happening (especially at Reuters and in British papers), after all. Not that you'd notice any pattern of editorial malfesence since you choose not to, but that's why I write about it and you play catch-up.

15 I'm no expert on overseas papers, but there have been too many accounts of staged photo ops and film footage and not just small errors, but big and very damaging blunders. Are they spread out over a vast array of news outlets? Yes. But some seem to be more apt to make these "mistakes" than others. And I gotta tell ya - that some AP and Reuters personnel, all for the sake of news coverage and photos, willingly cavort with terrorists to spread their propaganda calling it "neutrality" really disturbs me.

16 As it should. You will also (apparently) recieve flak for highlighting these ongoing patterns of "editorial misjudgement" from lefties as if you are somehow deranged for having a problem with media outlets misreporting informtaion (which is their "profession"), posting erroneous and falsely attributed photos and misleading editorial content that manages to leak off of the op-ed pages on a daily basis. The fact is that every major and mid-sized rag in America runs a good portion of content from the wires. When Reuters runs misattributed, incorrect or doctored photos from questionable sources (like terrorist-friendly correspondents), they also disseminate that mistake to any number of media organizations who may or may not pick up that content and run it. When the original (as the Haditha pics I posted on the post) are put out by the AP, a paper like the UK Times simply took the AP as gospel and ran the photos. A moronic leftwing cartoonist then "speaks lies to power" by scrawling a distasteful and consequently inaccurate smear of the US troops which goes out all over their coverage area. Rinse, lather, repeat. If the organizations are internationally based, then they aren't going to be held to the already low standards that American journalism is held to. Since we are dealing with our military in the middle of a shooting war, there is an argument that this kind of shoddy,lazy editing and reporting is actually giving aid and comfort to the Islamist enemies in this conflict. Islamists might as well take out full page ads in the UK Times or the Chicago Sun Times saying "Look. Just look at what the US does to innocents. Stop the war." That's powerful stuff, and should be held to a high standard of proof, verification and editorial oversight. Period, no exceptions. Mistakes should be corrected loudly, directly and immediately (and repeatedly, so that the public knows what is truly accurate information and what is pap). Hence, it is a big deal, and I will not shy away from criticizing ANY media organization not taking the utmost care to treat potentially damaging news about our troops with deference, meticulousness and the utmost respect that all of them have paid in blood, sweat and tears to earn. Journalists know deep down that the only reason their profession exists at all is because the military is and has always been willing to fight for their right to print their daily screeds (lies and all). Pay the troops back by taking some extra time to get it right, and not to be a propaganda enabler / conduit.

17 The good Lt. very much reminds me of another of my Jawa favorites; always an answer to everything and an inability to admit error. So when will you be getting your eyepatch? Well, keep up the good work — someone may notice.

18 I also gotta admit you make a strong argument above. There.

19 Good Lt., "Journalists know deep down that the only reason their profession exists at all is because the military is and always has been willing to fight for their right to print their daily screeds(lies and all)." A few know this, Good Lt., but the vast majority don't know it and don't believe it, either. What they know is that they hate the US military because that is what they see standing in their way. Standing in the way of some kind of UN run world, along the lines of the EU, where the beauracracy controls everything, and where the elites, which they happen to believe includes themselves, run it all. Just look at the liberal movement afoot in the Supreme Court of the US to use court decisions in other countries, primarily EU members but others as well, to trash the Constitution of the United States. Another indication that the Left, both in the US and abroad, hate the US military is the obvious alliance between the Left and the Islamic fundamentalists. This is another attempt to weaken the West, and its resolve to resist the totalitarian regimes the Left wishes to saddle us with. It's not that the Leftists like the Muslims, it's just that the Left sees them as a way to help them reach their goals.

20 I think when a major media outlet makes a mistake, the correction should be made in the same manner as the mistake. If the mistake was 36 point font on the front page, then the apology/correction should be 36 point font on the front page. The same people who read the mistake and took it to be true have to see the correction.

21 Good Lt. You make a great case for common sense. Remember, leftards don't use it. So prepared to be judged by less than you. Best to tell them to eat shit.