Latest News (page 3)

'The Americans believe they have now found the secret of success in counterinsurgency in the formula they have adopted for the "surge" in Iraq - a combination of sticks and carrots, incentives and arms for local groups and tribes. Plus a lot of airpower - much more than is presently making the news reports.'

This last is true and very important. As the Washington Post recently reported: 'The U.S.-led coalition dropped 1,447 bombs on Iraq last year, an average of nearly four a day, compared with 229 bombs, or about four each week, in 2006.'

The other main thing to bear in mind when considering any given media story is to ask oneself, NOT if it's 'true', but instead: 'Who would benefit if it was widely believed that this was true?'. Cui bono is, unfortunately, as relevant as it ever was.

What is particularly interesting is the reaction of the 'usual suspects'. As they say in Northern Ireland: 'Even the dogs and cats in the street' know that the current attitude to Iran has nothing to do with Iran's 'nuclear ambitions' and everything to do with the drive to war. Only that explains this:

'U.S. hardliners on Iran are saying the intelligence document is too ridden with internal political squabbles to be credible.

"That such a flawed product could emerge after a drawn-out bureaucratic struggle is extremely troubling," John Bolton, one of the chief proponents of sanctions to stop the Iranian weapons program, wrote Thursday's Washington Post.

Republican presidential contender Fred Thompson drew his line in the sand, issuing a statement saying: "The accuracy of the latest NIE on Iran should be received with a good deal of skepticism. Our intelligence community has often underestimated the intentions of adversaries, including Saddam Hussein's Iraq and North Korea."

Saying the report is "awfully convenient for a lot of people," Thompson continued, "the administration gets to say its policies worked; the Democrats get to claim we should have eased up on Iran a long time ago: and Russia and China can claim sanctions on Iran are not necessary. Who benefits from all this? Iran."

The Wall Street Journal editorial page -- one of many conservative opinion-makers to question the report authors' credibility -- wrote Wednesday: "Our own 'confidence' is not heightened by the fact that the NIE's main authors include three former State Department officials with previous reputations as 'hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials.' "The Journal named former State Department officials Tom Fingar, Vann Van Diepin and Kenneth Brill.

Conservative talk radio, which is widely credited with helping destroy support for the immigration reform bill supported by the president last year, is also less than glowing toward the report. "I guarantee there's more sabotage coming out of that place regarding the Bush administration," Rush Limbaugh said of the State Department.'

So what do they do? The 'liberal' response to this is as follows: 'we' live in a free market economy. Newspapers and movies and TV channels which fail to gain 'market share' go under. 'Popular' channels and movies and newspapers gain readers and, therefore, revenue. In the broadest sense of the words, therefore, the public gets the media it deserves. The media does (and, indeed, must) reflect public views and opinions.