1. Marty said:

I do not care to defend any MSM, as I think they are in the overall picture, worthless in the area of true reportage, and that includes Fox, but I missed which part was media biased.

All media has been reporting attacks, bombings and killing for more than a year. So that cannot be it.

All media and Rice has been reporting a higher than expected turnout of registered voters (whether accurate we shall see) amid attacks and threats of violence, so that cannot be it.

Was there something inaccurate?

2. Akiva said:

It's the focus and slant.

Read this (CNN): http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.main/index.html

Versus this (Myway/ap) : http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050130/D87UJ6501.html

CNN says: "Polls have begun closing...amid attacks and threats of violence"

Myway says: "Iraqis defied violence and calls for a boycott to cast ballots in Iraq's first free election in a half-century Sunday."

Clearly there were a small number of terrible attacks (8?), and a small number of people injured and killed (less than 100 combined I think).

What is completely lacking in the first case, and even somewhat in the second, is any perspective. Something like this:

"Iraqi's voted with jubulation and without fear at tens of thousands of polling placings. With over 10 million voters voting, 8 polling places were attacked and 90 people injured and killed, making the terrorists the complete losers in this election, effecting only .0001% of the voting population and only .08% of the polling places."

Kinda gives it a different perspective, huh?

3. Marty said:

It's only diffrence if you champion the cause of one versus putting it all up for grabs. But I am not sure this CNN headline and the rest suppoort your position (and there is more upbeat and supportive text not quoted):

Polls have closed and ballot counting has begun after Iraq's first free election in a half century, with officials reporting a higher than expected turnout of registered voters amid attacks and threats of violence.

"Prime Minister Tony Blair urged Britain to "embrace the bright future of Iraq's new democracy" after Sunday's elections," The Independent Election Commission of Iraq clarified an earlier estimate of a 72 percent turnout in Sunday's election, saying that the "figures are only very rough, word-of-mouth estimates gathered informally from the field."

"It will take some time for the IECI to issue accurate figures on turnout," the statement said. "What is certainly the case is that turnout has exceeded expectations throughout the country."

More than 14.2 million Iraqis were registered for the vote. Polls have closed, although voters who were in line at the time of poll closings were being allowed to cast their ballots.

In the southern city of Basra, ITN's Juliet Bremner reported that turnout was almost 90 percent. She said voting was peaceful and orderly with elated Shias -- oppressed for decades under Saddam -- "determined to cast their votes in their desire for freedom, peace and food."

Sabah Kadim, a senior adviser in Iraq's Interior Ministry, shrugged off the string of attacks in a CNN interview. "We have [terrorists] today, we had them yesterday, we will have them tomorrow," he said. "The difference will be that the Iraqi people have elected a government that is legitimate that will be much stronger in dealing with them."

Ashraf Qazi, the United Nations special representative for Iraq, said most, if not all, the country's polling stations were open and functioning -- and even at the ones where explosions occurred, voting resumed quickly.

Interim President Ghazi al-Yawer was among the first to vote on Sunday, saying he hoped the vote would be the first step towards a democracy that Iraqis will be proud of. "Deep in my heart, I feel that Iraqis deserve free elections," al-Yawer said after voting in Baghdad. He was followed hours later by Iraq's interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who cast his vote donning his glasses and smiling as he dipped his finger in ink.

4. Akiva said:

I agree as you move deeper into the actual articles that the MSM does include both sides of the details. However, it's the headlines and first paragraph that sets the tone (and often people don't read beyond that).

Current MSNBC opening page headline: "Surprising Turnout, Iraqi's defy threats, go to polls; insurgents stage deadly attacks" (emphasis mine). Article headline, "Against violent backdrop, Iraqis turn out to vote, Attacks on polling stations kill 44, including 9 suicide bombers". First paragraph - More Iraqis than anticipated defied threats of violence and calls for a boycott to cast ballots Sunday in Iraq's first free election in a half-century. The violence continued unabated, however, with insurgent attacks on polling stations killing at least 44 people, including nine suicide bombers.

Same story, yea they voted but the violence was terrible. (Another standard game, the 44 people killed included the 9 suicide bombers. Phrased another way, you could write "35 non-murders killed today".

Suddenly, halfway through the article they write this, "But the mood elsewhere was triumphant, with long lines in many places in the city: Civilians and policemen danced outside one polling site, and some streets were packed with voters walking shoulder-to-shoulder toward polling centers." Elsewhere? You mean at 99.997% of the polling places? You mean 99.99996% of the voters were unaffected by the violence and appreciated the opportunity to vote, right?

5. Marty said:

Akiva, now the words are not the problem, its the placement. Clearly, if you could write it, it would more accurately reflect your view. Not their job. You refer an emphasis that shows your view of things. I prefer reading the whole article and finding for myself all the facts. Give credit to readers. For those that do not read the entire article, CNN should not be called biased (there are other neater and cleaner examples) simply for where it puts the words.